Printable View
There's a lot of evidence that this situation was created by his political opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeystone
To increase conservation measures and decrease reliance on foreign oil. Alternative fuels is a domestic industry.
The military doesn't do shit and is a bloated bloodsucking leech planted firmly on the throat of the American taxpayer. Gutting them is as good an idea today as it was then. More money for shit that's useful at the expense of a couple missiles.
Because full employment is a myth people are sold on to justify cutting welfare. Its never existed under a capitalist system and its actively problematic both to the economy as a whole (because it fucks your labour forces flexibility right in the arse, meaning its slow to capitalise on any new industry) and to individual companies (the reduced competition drives up employee wages).Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeystone
:brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Raype
Not having any kind of military in a country this large is like asking to be pissed on.
I stand by what I said. We got no business playing the world's police in countries full of people who just hate us anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raype
We tried that in Vietnam, look how well that worked out for us, and all of the people that died for nothing.
We are trying that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its not working there either. As soon as we leave either of those 2 countries they will just go back to being the same way they were before we went in.
Look at how many times we went in to fix/rebuild Haiti over the years, for them to just run it in the ground again after we fix the country up for them.
Not only should we not be playing the World's Police force and savior, but even if we do we fail miserably at it and just have our tax payers give up money, and our soldiers give their lives fighting for something that sure as hell isn't worth a single American soldier's life.
But don't get me wrong, I'm no pacifist. But here lately when we go to war, its been for all of the wrong reasons, and even if we had a legitimate reason for going in to begin with, like with Afghanistan, we got no legitimate reason to still be there now. The Taliban no longer run Afghanistan, and Bin Laden is dead. Ok we won, lets get out of there.
Actually, yes, I would (I didn't even go on the "Reduced Lunch" program when I was a kid). Although that completely unjustified ad-hominem attack is so very appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeystone
Also, my whole point is that I want to help you, and I think that we should all help each other. But hey, you know, whatever.
Dude, I hate to break it to yah, but the number of people who actually base their entire existence of of government aid has been astronomically exaggerated. And most of the people who do have no other option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeystone
But that is honestly more-or-less what I was talking about. Most of the time I've been a proponent of "More aid if you work" type programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeystone
Also, the US minimum wage has not been considered a "living wage" since the 1960's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Mario
Back to my original argument however:
Revert the taxes on the top 3%, reduce defense spending, and increase business regulation.
We spend more on defense than China, France, The UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, and Italy combined. Actually twice that number. Also out of those 7 countries, we spend the highest percentage of our GDP on military spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shardnax
Speaking of which...
You have no idea how vastly ironic it is that you said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeystone
I was saying we shouldn't kill military spending wholeheartedly, not that we shouldn't, or couldn't, make cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alakazander
Considering the success of other countries interventions, it might suggest that this is a failure of US doctrine and ideology, not a failure of the underlying concept. It might also suggest that there are reasons, of varying legitimacy, for the hatred encountered.Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonedge
Unfortunately, the Taliban do still effectively run large parts of Afghanistan and various warlords (of the sort the people were happy to see the Taliban drive out) control quite a bit of it as well. The Karzai governments power basically ends once you get out of sight of Kabul. The fact that the Taliban are empowered in a good chunk of Pakistans FATA doesn't help either.
What I underlined has a whole lot to do with the problem. A change of ideology is needed, something that neither party seem to offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Mario
And as far as countries hating us, it has a whole lot to do with our foreign policy and mingling in foreign affairs we should really be keeping our nose out of. The Muslim world is going to hate us because we side with Israel, and have several military bases in their countries. I don't even know what mutual benefit we have to gain from being allied with Israel is. The US certainly is awful selective in who they accuse and go after for war crimes, considering their biggest ally Israel has been accused many times of doing quite a few themselves with some hard evidence to support it. But the US does nothing but Veto whenever it comes up in the UN.
The Taliban could never actually defeat the US in combat, but what they can do is drag it out to the point where we lose interest or willingness to pursue it any further. When it is no longer politically popular, then it will end. This is how they will win the war. They could lose every single battle, but still win the war. We are spending a whole lot of money and resources to continue this war, they are spending very little money and resources in comparison. The only way we could win is if we had plans to conquer Afghanistan, control it and make a permanent presence. The Taliban already know we are going to leave eventually, so all they have to do is hold out, and raise some hell to make sure they make news in the US. We went into Afghanistan without a pre-determined idea of what victory, or success would be. This operation was defeated from the very beginning. When the US fights a war it is more about politics, and less about winning.
You pretty much said "don't let the US military do these things, instead, let the US military do things"Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonedge
Because, y'know, the invasion of Afghanistan? NATO.
So yeah.
You're geographically extremely sound for a country with such a huge military budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shardnax
Remember the 90's which had massive slashes to military and defense budgets? Weren't those horrible times economically and riddled with foreign invasions?
:wacko:
I think it was only the US and GB that initially invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.
The ISAF was created by the UN in December 2001, and NATO took control of the ISAF in August 2003.
NATO is largely funded by the US, but they are ran by input from many countries. I guess it sorta is another branch of the US, because if the US asks for help they will give it. NATO is just a coalition based military that was created in the Soviet era to be the front line defense against Soviet Russia, now that has passed I don't really see them as needed anymore. Maybe we should quit funding NATO and let Europe fork over the larger portion of the tab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raype
According to this article, the US picks up around 75% of the tab for Nato:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_70427.htm
The military wasn't completely gutted, as you proposed :wacko:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raype
Not completely, but it safely survived an appendectomy and a couple bouts of hemicolectomy. I think it could go through it again safely. :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shardnax
The problem with the military is that the accounting standards in a word SUCKS! The 'golden toilet seats' mentality still exists. Questionable money wasting projects like F-23(fighter jet that supposed to replace the F-14). The project was started in 1980 and people still want to pump money into a project that only produced two prototypes that are collecting dust in a museum. I trust the military to fight and win wars. . .I don't trust the military to run a budget with common sense. . .
That still won't start to cover but a small fraction of the deficit. And it has been proven time and time again that increasing business regulation pushes business outside of our borders and cuts American jobs. HSBC, the UK's largest bank is pulling completely out of the US. They said it was because the increased regulations make business in the US too risky. Countless other corporations are holding onto their money instead of investing it. On average, companies are keeping about 20% more cash on hand then they had this time last year. When asked they aren't investing this cash and creating jobs many CEO's responded that it was for two reasons: the current administrations view on the economy and view on increasing regulations and taxes for business. If the economy is going to be slow, it's not worth it to make high risk investments. The same goes with taxes and regulations. "Obamacare" (I hate using that word, but it gets the point across) is going to cost companies far more then they currently spend. This is forcing many companies to drop coverage for retirees and reduce coverage, sometimes with more cost to the employee. So my health coverage has decreased due to "Obamacare."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alakazander
You may not like me saying this, but companies exist not to create products or services but to create profit. Jobs, products, and services are a by product of working to create a profit. If a company can't create a profit it must shut down at the expense of jobs, products, and services. At this point, everybody loses.