50% of Tax Dollars Going to the Military

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]gremlin1267 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I guess rather than getting into a pissing match over percentages, I will rephrase my question, why does it not bother this forum that we spend so much on the military, our social programs are a drop in the bucket. Do we have to be have to spend 8 dollars to 1 dollar in China to be superior, could we not cut it down to 4 dollars to every dollar china spends [/quote]

Okay, first off, there’s no fracking way that the govenrment spends 50% of it’s budget on the military.

Second off, you’re one percentage hyperlink was totally biased. A bunch of anti-war protesters obviously made that crap up. I mean comeon, why don’t you research a couple of sites before making a conclusion on this controversy. For example, a research study shows creatine doesn’t help build muscle tissue or help with anaerobic exercises at all, so are you going to stop taking it forever, because one study says it causes cancer or some crap.

Thirdly, why do you think we’re a super power in the world with the finest military in the world. Um, yeah, we pay big bucks to have good gear and a high level of technology so we can win the fight. Maybe you’d prefer moving to China where everyone is required to join the military. Oh, you don’t want to go, “we kill yo’, yo’ family, and yo’ fwiends!” I mean comeon, we have great things in America in regards to other countries, and there’s a reason for that. Prehaps you’d prefer living in a Communist country. I here North Korea is accepting applications.

OOOO, oooo, ooooo, I have another idea…why don’t we fracking start spending money on America rather than all these other fracking countries that hate us and don’t want us their anyway. On this point I’ll agree government funds could be better proportioned, but when it comes to dealing with the military and keeping our freedoms and way of life their really isn’t an issue. Put your life on the line and see if you want to do it for free…

v/r

Gremlin[/quote]

Well let me start off by saying FRACK YU :slight_smile:

We could spend half of what we are spending today and still spend four times what the Chinese spend and they are in second place

We almost spend as much as all other countries combined, do we have to be THAT SUPIRIOR? War is expensive and America should take care of America first.
[/quote]

So, tell me. How does China’s military stack up against ours? What are their surface to air missile capabilities, anti-cruise missile capabilities, etc. How does their infantry compare to ours? Can they match our M1A1 Abrams tank?

I thought so. You have no idea how much we should be spending on military.[/quote]

No, but he does have a sense that at some point enough must be enough.

How “superior” do you have to be until you will feel somehwhat safe?

[/quote]

I agree, at some point enough is enough. I’m sure there are things that could be cut from the Defense budget.

On the other hand, while only a small percentage of our 330 million population is capable of fighting in combat, China is capable of having a military that is bigger than our population.

By the way, technology costs money. We are no longer flying mechanically simple planes, driving mechanically simple tanks, or sailing in mechanically simple submarines and ships. Unfortunately, costs grows exponentially with technological advancement in weapons.[/quote]

Ypu are very, very good at killing people, maybe the sheer size of an army is not that much of an issue?

122

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]gremlin1267 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I guess rather than getting into a pissing match over percentages, I will rephrase my question, why does it not bother this forum that we spend so much on the military, our social programs are a drop in the bucket. Do we have to be have to spend 8 dollars to 1 dollar in China to be superior, could we not cut it down to 4 dollars to every dollar china spends [/quote]

Okay, first off, there’s no fracking way that the govenrment spends 50% of it’s budget on the military.

Second off, you’re one percentage hyperlink was totally biased. A bunch of anti-war protesters obviously made that crap up. I mean comeon, why don’t you research a couple of sites before making a conclusion on this controversy. For example, a research study shows creatine doesn’t help build muscle tissue or help with anaerobic exercises at all, so are you going to stop taking it forever, because one study says it causes cancer or some crap.

Thirdly, why do you think we’re a super power in the world with the finest military in the world. Um, yeah, we pay big bucks to have good gear and a high level of technology so we can win the fight. Maybe you’d prefer moving to China where everyone is required to join the military. Oh, you don’t want to go, “we kill yo’, yo’ family, and yo’ fwiends!” I mean comeon, we have great things in America in regards to other countries, and there’s a reason for that. Prehaps you’d prefer living in a Communist country. I here North Korea is accepting applications.

OOOO, oooo, ooooo, I have another idea…why don’t we fracking start spending money on America rather than all these other fracking countries that hate us and don’t want us their anyway. On this point I’ll agree government funds could be better proportioned, but when it comes to dealing with the military and keeping our freedoms and way of life their really isn’t an issue. Put your life on the line and see if you want to do it for free…

v/r

Gremlin[/quote]

Well let me start off by saying FRACK YU :slight_smile:

We could spend half of what we are spending today and still spend four times what the Chinese spend and they are in second place

We almost spend as much as all other countries combined, do we have to be THAT SUPIRIOR? War is expensive and America should take care of America first.
[/quote]

So, tell me. How does China’s military stack up against ours? What are their surface to air missile capabilities, anti-cruise missile capabilities, etc. How does their infantry compare to ours? Can they match our M1A1 Abrams tank?

I thought so. You have no idea how much we should be spending on military.[/quote]

No, but he does have a sense that at some point enough must be enough.

How “superior” do you have to be until you will feel somehwhat safe?

[/quote]

I agree, at some point enough is enough. I’m sure there are things that could be cut from the Defense budget.

On the other hand, while only a small percentage of our 330 million population is capable of fighting in combat, China is capable of having a military that is bigger than our population.

By the way, technology costs money. We are no longer flying mechanically simple planes, driving mechanically simple tanks, or sailing in mechanically simple submarines and ships. Unfortunately, costs grows exponentially with technological advancement in weapons.[/quote]

Okay what is your point ?

123

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Scuba19 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]gremlin1267 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I guess rather than getting into a pissing match over percentages, I will rephrase my question, why does it not bother this forum that we spend so much on the military, our social programs are a drop in the bucket. Do we have to be have to spend 8 dollars to 1 dollar in China to be superior, could we not cut it down to 4 dollars to every dollar china spends [/quote]

Okay, first off, there’s no fracking way that the govenrment spends 50% of it’s budget on the military.

Second off, you’re one percentage hyperlink was totally biased. A bunch of anti-war protesters obviously made that crap up. I mean comeon, why don’t you research a couple of sites before making a conclusion on this controversy. For example, a research study shows creatine doesn’t help build muscle tissue or help with anaerobic exercises at all, so are you going to stop taking it forever, because one study says it causes cancer or some crap.

Thirdly, why do you think we’re a super power in the world with the finest military in the world. Um, yeah, we pay big bucks to have good gear and a high level of technology so we can win the fight. Maybe you’d prefer moving to China where everyone is required to join the military. Oh, you don’t want to go, “we kill yo’, yo’ family, and yo’ fwiends!” I mean comeon, we have great things in America in regards to other countries, and there’s a reason for that. Prehaps you’d prefer living in a Communist country. I here North Korea is accepting applications.

OOOO, oooo, ooooo, I have another idea…why don’t we fracking start spending money on America rather than all these other fracking countries that hate us and don’t want us their anyway. On this point I’ll agree government funds could be better proportioned, but when it comes to dealing with the military and keeping our freedoms and way of life their really isn’t an issue. Put your life on the line and see if you want to do it for free…

v/r

Gremlin[/quote]

Well let me start off by saying FRACK YU :slight_smile:

We could spend half of what we are spending today and still spend four times what the Chinese spend and they are in second place

We almost spend as much as all other countries combined, do we have to be THAT SUPIRIOR? War is expensive and America should take care of America first.
[/quote]

So, tell me. How does China’s military stack up against ours? What are their surface to air missile capabilities, anti-cruise missile capabilities, etc. How does their infantry compare to ours? Can they match our M1A1 Abrams tank?

I thought so. You have no idea how much we should be spending on military.[/quote]

No, but he does have a sense that at some point enough must be enough.

How “superior” do you have to be until you will feel somehwhat safe?

[/quote]

I agree, at some point enough is enough. I’m sure there are things that could be cut from the Defense budget.

On the other hand, while only a small percentage of our 330 million population is capable of fighting in combat, China is capable of having a military that is bigger than our population.

By the way, technology costs money. We are no longer flying mechanically simple planes, driving mechanically simple tanks, or sailing in mechanically simple submarines and ships. Unfortunately, costs grows exponentially with technological advancement in weapons.[/quote]

Why do you think poor militaries use suicide bommers , pretty cheap and very effective . As far as worring about china invading us , why not worry about China forclosing on us .

124

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Do you really think people would voluntarily help others if there wasn’t some kind of tax benefit for charitable contributions. Some would and you may be one of them, but most people in my opinion would not. We are going to be taxed regardless of how we feel about it. I would rather my tax dollars go to the truly needy around the world and domestically then to pay for a senators third mortgage. [/quote]

What does the tax treatment for charitable donations have to do with taking my money and handing it out against my will?

Regardless of tax code, people would donate. it’s not like you get it all get it all back. If you are paying 30% in taxes, a $100 donation still ends up being a $70 donation after tax treatment. Why would i spend $100 to get $30 back unless I was interested in helping someone?

I have exactly zero deductions for charitable donation on my return this year. I donated much more than zero.

You let people keep more of their own money and they will give more. Each person will decide who deserves their hard earned money. They will also take more interest in that money being spent efficiently than some arbitrary bureaucrat spending someone else’s money that was taken by force.

125

As far as the rights of government, legitimate functions are:

  1. Military for the DEFENSE of the population
  2. Judicial system for settling disputes
  3. Providing a sound monetary system

So, 50% or whatever is spent on military is fine. I just have a problem with what that 50% is coming from! 50% of 500 billion is unreasonable, considering how it is spent. Wars of aggression (which are never declared, and put on the credit card), military bases around the world, foreign intervention, etc. are totally unacceptable and they are adding to the debt at an alarming rate. Defend the home land, bring the troops home, and save our country and our dollar! Our military’s greatest threat is us running out of money.

126

[quote]UB07 wrote:
As far as the rights of government, legitimate functions are:

  1. Military for the DEFENSE of the population
  2. Judicial system for settling disputes
  3. Providing a sound monetary system

So, 50% or whatever is spent on military is fine. I just have a problem with what that 50% is coming from! 50% of 500 billion is unreasonable, considering how it is spent. Wars of aggression (which are never declared, and put on the credit card), military bases around the world, foreign intervention, etc. are totally unacceptable and they are adding to the debt at an alarming rate. Defend the home land, bring the troops home, and save our country and our dollar! Our military’s greatest threat is us running out of money. [/quote]

Preach it Bro :slight_smile:

127

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Do you really think people would voluntarily help others if there wasn’t some kind of tax benefit for charitable contributions. Some would and you may be one of them, but most people in my opinion would not. We are going to be taxed regardless of how we feel about it. I would rather my tax dollars go to the truly needy around the world and domestically then to pay for a senators third mortgage. [/quote]

What does the tax treatment for charitable donations have to do with taking my money and handing it out against my will?

Regardless of tax code, people would donate. it’s not like you get it all get it all back. If you are paying 30% in taxes, a $100 donation still ends up being a $70 donation after tax treatment. Why would i spend $100 to get $30 back unless I was interested in helping someone?

I have exactly zero deductions for charitable donation on my return this year. I donated much more than zero.

You let people keep more of their own money and they will give more. Each person will decide who deserves their hard earned money. They will also take more interest in that money being spent efficiently than some arbitrary bureaucrat spending someone else’s money that was taken by force.[/quote]

Most people would not give to charity even if they didn’t pay taxes, I can’t prove it, but its still how I feel.

We don’t really disagree. The difference is I have excepted that we will pay taxes regardless of how I feel about it. Taxes will exist as long as federal, state, and local governments exist. All I have been trying to say is I, key word being I, would rather see my tax dollars go to help people that need it not some douche bag in Congress or on Wall street. As I was saying the military could be used in this regard.

128

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
We have enough resources to help everyone here… [/quote]

Quoted for fail![/quote]

Where’s the fail?
[/quote]
I’m sorry, I thought the pic was funny and represented fail – maybe it doesn’t but that’s not the point I was trying to make.

Saying “we have enough resources to help everyone here” is fail for so many reasons:

  1. who is we? I only have enough to support me and mine.
  2. If there were enough resources here there would be no foreign trade.
  3. clearly not “everyone” can get a piece of the pie otherwise dogooders would not feel the need to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Am I still wrong?[/quote]

First off you left out a key portion of my statement. I said, “we have enough resources to help everyone here that needs it”. The end of that sentence certainly is important.

Now to your points,

  1. I don’t know you, but the fact that you are conversing on this forum tells me you have a computer or at least access to a computer and the internet. Which tells me you have “more” then you need for you and yours. You can spend your money however yout want, that isn’t my point. My point is you have more then you NEED to survive. Don’t read into that statement I mean absolutely nothing more then what I wrote.

  2. “we” as in the western nations with the majority of the wealth in this world certainly do have enough resources to help those in need. “we” have those resource both democratically and through foreign trade. “we” are just selfish enough to hoard our wealth and say fuck you to everyone else.

  3. Every word I have typed on this forum was based on the idea that our tax dollars are; 1) always going to be collected and 2) that I would rather they be used to help others. We can use the military for this.

I am not advocating socialism or any type of wealth redistribution. All I have said repeatedly is that I, key word being I, would rather see my tax dollars go to people that could use them not some bureaucrat.

129

Umm wow… 50% really…

well last time I checked I’m in the military and I’m BELOW the poverty line… I think more money for E-3s =)

130

[quote]UB07 wrote:
As far as the rights of government, legitimate functions are:

  1. Military for the DEFENSE of the population
  2. Judicial system for settling disputes
  3. Providing a sound monetary system

So, 50% or whatever is spent on military is fine. I just have a problem with what that 50% is coming from! 50% of 500 billion is unreasonable, considering how it is spent. Wars of aggression (which are never declared, and put on the credit card), military bases around the world, foreign intervention, etc. are totally unacceptable and they are adding to the debt at an alarming rate. Defend the home land, bring the troops home, and save our country and our dollar! Our military’s greatest threat is us running out of money. [/quote]

If that last statement is true, then we indeed have nothing to fear but fear itself.

131

[quote]Spencerulz wrote:
Umm wow… 50% really…

well last time I checked I’m in the military and I’m BELOW the poverty line… I think more money for E-3s =)

[/quote]

I think it’d called Republican welfare :slight_smile:

132

[quote]Spencerulz wrote:
Umm wow… 50% really…

well last time I checked I’m in the military and I’m BELOW the poverty line… I think more money for E-3s =)

[/quote]

I bet you get paid more as an e3 than I did. Plus you’re leaving out your living expenses that get paid for you. I am sure you top out over $22K once all those extras are counted.

But, duh, everyone knows a nation’s military is supposed to be poor. That way no one really misses them when they are dead except their family.

133

[quote]Spencerulz wrote:
Umm wow… 50% really…

well last time I checked I’m in the military and I’m BELOW the poverty line… I think more money for E-3s =)

[/quote]
How much do you think that E-3 in China is making?

That’s the major reason for the disparity in ours and China’s military spending. Salaries. Supporting a family of 4 on an E-3’s salary is tough, but doable, by American standards. That Chinaman E-3’s 4-year-old son has to work in a rice paddy or a sweat shop making Ameican kids shoes to make ends meet in his family. And those “ends” consist of a bowl of rice a week for the whole family.

Don’t get me started on what the Chinese E-3’s daughter has to do.

134

[quote]smithers584 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hahahahahahahahha!

No, they don’t. Seriously. They do not!! They kill people that could not care less about you and just create more animosity which just makes you less free.

Free people keep themselves free by opposing cruel government not by fighting wars directed by warmongering bomb-builders.
[/quote]

And how do you oppose cruel governments from taking control? Seriously, how do you suggest you do that?

Good thing I cant even think of an example of where this might have occured …oh wait, maybe Iraq? Maybe Afghanistan?

Spend some time over there, and ask them what they think the definition of freedom is. Ask them if they are happier now that Sadaam is out of power and dead.

And actually, we kill people who want to kill YOU, because they despise your way of life and your beliefs. We also protect your right to speak your mind, and all the other freedoms you take for granted.
[/quote]

Uh, you do realize that just about war America has fought since WW2 has been because the people we put in power rebelled against us.

Look at Iraq, since you brought it up. Iraq was heading towards a socialist democracy in '50s and '60s. You know what we did? We installed a brutal dictator named Qassem. When he refused to gun down, literally, hundreds of political dissidents, we overthrew him and placed someone by the name of Saddam Hussein in power. He had the guts to actually kill those hundreds of dissidents. In fact, we loved him so much we were going to build a nuke plant for him. The kind where you make nuclear bombs. Funny thing about that is that the Israelis didn’t trust Saddam like we trusted him, so they bombed the shit out of the plant in '82. And this is after what happened in Iran. Back when Iran was our buddy, we were ready to build a nuke plant in that country. In fact, if the Islamic Revolution happened only a few months later, Iran would have had a fully functioning reactor as well as the equipment to make nuclear bombs. Why do you think no strike has been made against Iran’s nuclear facilities? They were built by us to withstand Soviet nuclear bombardment.

So yea, America fights it’s allies once shit hits the fan. We haven’t been in a war for “freedom” since the Civil War.

Secondly, the biggest threat to America will not be another nation’s military. It’s going to be economics. The US is deeply overleveraged in almost every area. Remember, we are the world’s #1 debtor nation. China is the world’s #1 creditor nation. When it comes to natural resources, we are far behind the game. China has spent it’s money “wisely”, from a geopolitical standpoint. Sure, their populace is dirt poor, but China isn’t playing checkers, they’re playing chess. To the ruling party, the death of 300 million peasants is a small price to pay to guarantee global hegemony in the 2nd half of the 21st century. China has been courting natural resources around the globe. Iran, Iraq, Africa, Central Asia, there is not a place now where Chinese mineral, oil and gas companies are not investing.

America’s military can’t do anything about this. The game is about natural resources now. There can never be a military victory over these major players. The US and Russia never engaged directly in a war because as soon as one side lost, both sides lost. Nuclear war tends to make any victory Pyrrhic. This will be the same case in the 21st century between the US and China. Except this time, we are in a much worse position. When the Cold War started, we were the world’s #1 creditor nation, the world’s #1 oil producer, we were #1 in just every category that mattered. Now, we are in the middle of the pack or worse.

135

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]smithers584 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hahahahahahahahha!

No, they don’t. Seriously. They do not!! They kill people that could not care less about you and just create more animosity which just makes you less free.

Free people keep themselves free by opposing cruel government not by fighting wars directed by warmongering bomb-builders.
[/quote]

And how do you oppose cruel governments from taking control? Seriously, how do you suggest you do that?

Good thing I cant even think of an example of where this might have occured …oh wait, maybe Iraq? Maybe Afghanistan?

Spend some time over there, and ask them what they think the definition of freedom is. Ask them if they are happier now that Sadaam is out of power and dead.

And actually, we kill people who want to kill YOU, because they despise your way of life and your beliefs. We also protect your right to speak your mind, and all the other freedoms you take for granted.
[/quote]

Uh, you do realize that just about war America has fought since WW2 has been because the people we put in power rebelled against us.

Look at Iraq, since you brought it up. Iraq was heading towards a socialist democracy in '50s and '60s. You know what we did? We installed a brutal dictator named Qassem. When he refused to gun down, literally, hundreds of political dissidents, we overthrew him and placed someone by the name of Saddam Hussein in power. He had the guts to actually kill those hundreds of dissidents. In fact, we loved him so much we were going to build a nuke plant for him. The kind where you make nuclear bombs. Funny thing about that is that the Israelis didn’t trust Saddam like we trusted him, so they bombed the shit out of the plant in '82. And this is after what happened in Iran. Back when Iran was our buddy, we were ready to build a nuke plant in that country. In fact, if the Islamic Revolution happened only a few months later, Iran would have had a fully functioning reactor as well as the equipment to make nuclear bombs. Why do you think no strike has been made against Iran’s nuclear facilities? They were built by us to withstand Soviet nuclear bombardment.

So yea, America fights it’s allies once shit hits the fan. We haven’t been in a war for “freedom” since the Civil War.

Secondly, the biggest threat to America will not be another nation’s military. It’s going to be economics. The US is deeply overleveraged in almost every area. Remember, we are the world’s #1 debtor nation. China is the world’s #1 creditor nation. When it comes to natural resources, we are far behind the game. China has spent it’s money “wisely”, from a geopolitical standpoint. Sure, their populace is dirt poor, but China isn’t playing checkers, they’re playing chess. To the ruling party, the death of 300 million peasants is a small price to pay to guarantee global hegemony in the 2nd half of the 21st century. China has been courting natural resources around the globe. Iran, Iraq, Africa, Central Asia, there is not a place now where Chinese mineral, oil and gas companies are not investing.

America’s military can’t do anything about this. The game is about natural resources now. There can never be a military victory over these major players. The US and Russia never engaged directly in a war because as soon as one side lost, both sides lost. Nuclear war tends to make any victory Pyrrhic. This will be the same case in the 21st century between the US and China. Except this time, we are in a much worse position. When the Cold War started, we were the world’s #1 creditor nation, the world’s #1 oil producer, we were #1 in just every category that mattered. Now, we are in the middle of the pack or worse.[/quote]
very nice

137

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]smithers584 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hahahahahahahahha!

No, they don’t. Seriously. They do not!! They kill people that could not care less about you and just create more animosity which just makes you less free.

Free people keep themselves free by opposing cruel government not by fighting wars directed by warmongering bomb-builders.
[/quote]

And how do you oppose cruel governments from taking control? Seriously, how do you suggest you do that?

Good thing I cant even think of an example of where this might have occured …oh wait, maybe Iraq? Maybe Afghanistan?

Spend some time over there, and ask them what they think the definition of freedom is. Ask them if they are happier now that Sadaam is out of power and dead.

And actually, we kill people who want to kill YOU, because they despise your way of life and your beliefs. We also protect your right to speak your mind, and all the other freedoms you take for granted.
[/quote]

Uh, you do realize that just about war America has fought since WW2 has been because the people we put in power rebelled against us.

Look at Iraq, since you brought it up. Iraq was heading towards a socialist democracy in '50s and '60s. You know what we did? We installed a brutal dictator named Qassem. When he refused to gun down, literally, hundreds of political dissidents, we overthrew him and placed someone by the name of Saddam Hussein in power. He had the guts to actually kill those hundreds of dissidents. In fact, we loved him so much we were going to build a nuke plant for him. The kind where you make nuclear bombs. Funny thing about that is that the Israelis didn’t trust Saddam like we trusted him, so they bombed the shit out of the plant in '82. And this is after what happened in Iran. Back when Iran was our buddy, we were ready to build a nuke plant in that country. In fact, if the Islamic Revolution happened only a few months later, Iran would have had a fully functioning reactor as well as the equipment to make nuclear bombs. Why do you think no strike has been made against Iran’s nuclear facilities? They were built by us to withstand Soviet nuclear bombardment.

So yea, America fights it’s allies once shit hits the fan. We haven’t been in a war for “freedom” since the Civil War.

Secondly, the biggest threat to America will not be another nation’s military. It’s going to be economics. The US is deeply overleveraged in almost every area. Remember, we are the world’s #1 debtor nation. China is the world’s #1 creditor nation. When it comes to natural resources, we are far behind the game. China has spent it’s money “wisely”, from a geopolitical standpoint. Sure, their populace is dirt poor, but China isn’t playing checkers, they’re playing chess. To the ruling party, the death of 300 million peasants is a small price to pay to guarantee global hegemony in the 2nd half of the 21st century. China has been courting natural resources around the globe. Iran, Iraq, Africa, Central Asia, there is not a place now where Chinese mineral, oil and gas companies are not investing.

America’s military can’t do anything about this. The game is about natural resources now. There can never be a military victory over these major players. The US and Russia never engaged directly in a war because as soon as one side lost, both sides lost. Nuclear war tends to make any victory Pyrrhic. This will be the same case in the 21st century between the US and China. Except this time, we are in a much worse position. When the Cold War started, we were the world’s #1 creditor nation, the world’s #1 oil producer, we were #1 in just every category that mattered. Now, we are in the middle of the pack or worse.[/quote]

I would say sad but true

138

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]smithers584 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hahahahahahahahha!

No, they don’t. Seriously. They do not!! They kill people that could not care less about you and just create more animosity which just makes you less free.

Free people keep themselves free by opposing cruel government not by fighting wars directed by warmongering bomb-builders.
[/quote]

And how do you oppose cruel governments from taking control? Seriously, how do you suggest you do that?

Good thing I cant even think of an example of where this might have occured …oh wait, maybe Iraq? Maybe Afghanistan?

Spend some time over there, and ask them what they think the definition of freedom is. Ask them if they are happier now that Sadaam is out of power and dead.

And actually, we kill people who want to kill YOU, because they despise your way of life and your beliefs. We also protect your right to speak your mind, and all the other freedoms you take for granted.
[/quote]

Uh, you do realize that just about war America has fought since WW2 has been because the people we put in power rebelled against us.

Look at Iraq, since you brought it up. Iraq was heading towards a socialist democracy in '50s and '60s. You know what we did? We installed a brutal dictator named Qassem. When he refused to gun down, literally, hundreds of political dissidents, we overthrew him and placed someone by the name of Saddam Hussein in power. He had the guts to actually kill those hundreds of dissidents. In fact, we loved him so much we were going to build a nuke plant for him. The kind where you make nuclear bombs. Funny thing about that is that the Israelis didn’t trust Saddam like we trusted him, so they bombed the shit out of the plant in '82. And this is after what happened in Iran. Back when Iran was our buddy, we were ready to build a nuke plant in that country. In fact, if the Islamic Revolution happened only a few months later, Iran would have had a fully functioning reactor as well as the equipment to make nuclear bombs. Why do you think no strike has been made against Iran’s nuclear facilities? They were built by us to withstand Soviet nuclear bombardment.

So yea, America fights it’s allies once shit hits the fan. We haven’t been in a war for “freedom” since the Civil War.

Secondly, the biggest threat to America will not be another nation’s military. It’s going to be economics. The US is deeply overleveraged in almost every area. Remember, we are the world’s #1 debtor nation. China is the world’s #1 creditor nation. When it comes to natural resources, we are far behind the game. China has spent it’s money “wisely”, from a geopolitical standpoint. Sure, their populace is dirt poor, but China isn’t playing checkers, they’re playing chess. To the ruling party, the death of 300 million peasants is a small price to pay to guarantee global hegemony in the 2nd half of the 21st century. China has been courting natural resources around the globe. Iran, Iraq, Africa, Central Asia, there is not a place now where Chinese mineral, oil and gas companies are not investing.

America’s military can’t do anything about this. The game is about natural resources now. There can never be a military victory over these major players. The US and Russia never engaged directly in a war because as soon as one side lost, both sides lost. Nuclear war tends to make any victory Pyrrhic. This will be the same case in the 21st century between the US and China. Except this time, we are in a much worse position. When the Cold War started, we were the world’s #1 creditor nation, the world’s #1 oil producer, we were #1 in just every category that mattered. Now, we are in the middle of the pack or worse.[/quote]
very nice[/quote]

Very simplistic and therefore somewhat inaccurate.[/quote]

Well, it is a bit simplistic of course. I don’t have time nor does everyone have the patience to read a 50 page essay.

We installed dozens of dictators because we thought the alternative (liberal democracies leaning socialist/communist) was unacceptable. The Russians did the same in Central Asia. They installed extreme right wing dictators that brutalized their populations, all in the name of fighting capitalism. However, blowback is a bitch and we are realizing this now. Except that we are using the same tactics again to combat a new wave of threats. And thus, the cycle continues.

140

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]smithers584 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hahahahahahahahha!

No, they don’t. Seriously. They do not!! They kill people that could not care less about you and just create more animosity which just makes you less free.

Free people keep themselves free by opposing cruel government not by fighting wars directed by warmongering bomb-builders.
[/quote]

And how do you oppose cruel governments from taking control? Seriously, how do you suggest you do that?

Good thing I cant even think of an example of where this might have occured …oh wait, maybe Iraq? Maybe Afghanistan?

Spend some time over there, and ask them what they think the definition of freedom is. Ask them if they are happier now that Sadaam is out of power and dead.

And actually, we kill people who want to kill YOU, because they despise your way of life and your beliefs. We also protect your right to speak your mind, and all the other freedoms you take for granted.
[/quote]

Uh, you do realize that just about war America has fought since WW2 has been because the people we put in power rebelled against us.

Look at Iraq, since you brought it up. Iraq was heading towards a socialist democracy in '50s and '60s. You know what we did? We installed a brutal dictator named Qassem. When he refused to gun down, literally, hundreds of political dissidents, we overthrew him and placed someone by the name of Saddam Hussein in power. He had the guts to actually kill those hundreds of dissidents. In fact, we loved him so much we were going to build a nuke plant for him. The kind where you make nuclear bombs. Funny thing about that is that the Israelis didn’t trust Saddam like we trusted him, so they bombed the shit out of the plant in '82. And this is after what happened in Iran. Back when Iran was our buddy, we were ready to build a nuke plant in that country. In fact, if the Islamic Revolution happened only a few months later, Iran would have had a fully functioning reactor as well as the equipment to make nuclear bombs. Why do you think no strike has been made against Iran’s nuclear facilities? They were built by us to withstand Soviet nuclear bombardment.

So yea, America fights it’s allies once shit hits the fan. We haven’t been in a war for “freedom” since the Civil War.

Secondly, the biggest threat to America will not be another nation’s military. It’s going to be economics. The US is deeply overleveraged in almost every area. Remember, we are the world’s #1 debtor nation. China is the world’s #1 creditor nation. When it comes to natural resources, we are far behind the game. China has spent it’s money “wisely”, from a geopolitical standpoint. Sure, their populace is dirt poor, but China isn’t playing checkers, they’re playing chess. To the ruling party, the death of 300 million peasants is a small price to pay to guarantee global hegemony in the 2nd half of the 21st century. China has been courting natural resources around the globe. Iran, Iraq, Africa, Central Asia, there is not a place now where Chinese mineral, oil and gas companies are not investing.

America’s military can’t do anything about this. The game is about natural resources now. There can never be a military victory over these major players. The US and Russia never engaged directly in a war because as soon as one side lost, both sides lost. Nuclear war tends to make any victory Pyrrhic. This will be the same case in the 21st century between the US and China. Except this time, we are in a much worse position. When the Cold War started, we were the world’s #1 creditor nation, the world’s #1 oil producer, we were #1 in just every category that mattered. Now, we are in the middle of the pack or worse.[/quote]
very nice[/quote]

Very simplistic and therefore somewhat inaccurate.[/quote]

Well, it is a bit simplistic of course. I don’t have time nor does everyone have the patience to read a 50 page essay.

We installed dozens of dictators because we thought the alternative (liberal democracies leaning socialist/communist) was unacceptable. The Russians did the same in Central Asia. They installed extreme right wing dictators that brutalized their populations, all in the name of fighting capitalism. However, blowback is a bitch and we are realizing this now. Except that we are using the same tactics again to combat a new wave of threats. And thus, the cycle continues.[/quote]

“Dozens,” huh? So the US “installed” a minimum of 24 - 36 different dictators during the Cold War?

[Yawning at the bullshit][/quote]

err, probably close to that amount. Just about every military coup in South America was engineered by the US (Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil is what I can recall off the top of my head). In the Middle East, we supported/installed the Shah, Qassem, Saddam, the Emirs in Kuwait, the Sauds in Arabia. Just about any time any country we had sway over was heading towards a socialist democracy, we intervened and installed a military dictator. The Russians did the same thing in Central Asia.

Your refusal to understand world events does not mean that they did not occur.