|
On June 27 2011 09:01 caradoc wrote:
re: the bandits. Farmer A is scared of bandits too, but the other farmers think its kinda funny but also alarming and obsessive. The other farmers have never had bandit troubles. Farmer A thinks that its because he has so many weapons, which weirds out the rest of the farmers.
No bandit troubles? Maybe Farmer Canada and Farmer Sweden don't have bandit troubles, but - ok, this is silly. The fact of the matter is that there are significant dangers in the world that require both shows and threats of military force to deter. Could we spend less on our military in the USA? Absolutely. Without a doubt. But in the face of a US military that is unable to project its power across the globe, you can see the potentially for conflict between North and South Korea, China and Taiwan (less likely now but still potentially dangerous in the future), and Russia and nearby countries such as Georgia.
Yes, cutting military spending is certainly something the USA should explore and most likely do in the very near future, but to discount the effect of the US military on world security is, in my opinion, a mistake.
EDIT: Now, I'm not saying if we cut one aircraft carrier, the world will be plunged into World War III, haha. That is kind of what the above sounds like. All I am saying is that a great portion of the world benefits greatly from US military dominance and our willingness to use it.
|
On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Cutting down on the military is an easy thing to talk about when we are sitting pretty with all of the advanced weapons and infrastructure that the past sixty years of heavy spending on the military have bought us. Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. Squandering that advantage to get our finances in order would be a decision made without any foresight or common sense.
Save a couple of nukes. Worked well during the cold war atleast.
The army you currently possess and pay for is an invasion army, and hasn't used for defensive purposes for about 70 years.
|
On June 27 2011 15:43 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Cutting down on the military is an easy thing to talk about when we are sitting pretty with all of the advanced weapons and infrastructure that the past sixty years of heavy spending on the military have bought us. Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. Squandering that advantage to get our finances in order would be a decision made without any foresight or common sense. Save a couple of nukes. Worked well during the cold war atleast. The army you currently possess and pay for is an invasion army, and hasn't used for defensive purposes for about 70 years.
Not American defense. It has however subsidized European, Japanese, and Korean defense since the 40s/50s. Personally I think we should withdraw our military from overseas and cut spending massively, but I just felt I should qualify your point for accuracy.
|
The problem with the USA budget right now, is that, in my opinion, there is no real way to solve it without resorting to tax increases.
Military spending can be cut; healthcare can be reformed; social security can be revamped; there are tons of stuff that we can do to lower spending. However, the problem simply is that the United States budget contains too much stuff that we have to pay for.
For example, military spending: While our army and "defense" budget is very much oversized, it must be realized that simple cutting of the budget will not work. The United States acts as a police power in many, many parts of the world, and withdrawal of that power is simply not feasible in many aspects. Sure, we definitely shouldn't be invading Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries 'cause we want the oil, but that doesn't excuse the fact that our military presence in Israel and East Asia are all rather essential. If we pull out all support for Israel, well, expect terrorism in the Middle East to rise. If we pull out of East Asia (S.Korea and Japan) expect China's sphere of influence (and by association N. Korea) to rise, which can be quite a legitimate security concern.
The problem is, no president and presidential candidate will risk even suggesting the words "tax increase" to the public (at least until their second term) as that will mean the end of their career. Even if they do attempt to raise taxes, Congress is so divided and, to put it bluntly, fucked up at the moment that it's highly unlikely that any reasonable change can be made. Until the public as a whole wises up, there's really only so much our leadership can do.
|
That's capitalism baby! Unless you as an individual want to take an interpersonal stance, and try to solve the problem of 7b people living on one finite planet (and not in a world of infinite growth), the problems of debt that "free" market capitalism has created will never be solved.
The problem's the system we use and the people using it. To quote Socrates;
"Technology Advances, but Humanity does not". Well said Soc', if people cared about each other, and fixing (upgrading) the system we use, the problems would be fixed. However 80%+ of the planet doesn't even care about the problems to begin with, nevermind actually understanding them enough to be able to help fix them.
May we live in Interesting Times! :D
|
The problem is, no president and presidential candidate will risk even suggesting the words "tax increase" to the public (at least until their second term) as that will mean the end of their career. Even if they do attempt to raise taxes, Congress is so divided and, to put it bluntly, fucked up at the moment that it's highly unlikely that any reasonable change can be made. Until the public as a whole wises up, there's really only so much our leadership can do.
This is what I've always been thinking too. The leaders represent the people's opinions. If the people would start demanding tax increases (lol) or cutting costs everywhere to pay the debt and have a healthy economy, then leaders would eventually get it and start doing something about it. But yeah, if one guy offers better military/school/healthcare/infrastructure/whatever and the other guy says he cant afford it beacuse he wants to pay off the debt, who will get elected? People aren't very economically responsible on a state or country level, hell some even have problems being responsible for their own economy. And until the people start to actually want a healthy economy over "give me more now", politicians can't do anything about it no matter they want it or not.
|
On June 27 2011 15:50 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 15:43 Euronyme wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Cutting down on the military is an easy thing to talk about when we are sitting pretty with all of the advanced weapons and infrastructure that the past sixty years of heavy spending on the military have bought us. Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. Squandering that advantage to get our finances in order would be a decision made without any foresight or common sense. Save a couple of nukes. Worked well during the cold war atleast. The army you currently possess and pay for is an invasion army, and hasn't used for defensive purposes for about 70 years. Not American defense. It has however subsidized European, Japanese, and Korean defense since the 40s/50s. Personally I think we should withdraw our military from overseas and cut spending massively, but I just felt I should qualify your point for accuracy.
Isn't that about protecting American interests? I highly doubt it's to look good in international media or whatever.
Right now to me it'd make more sence to pull it all back though.
|
On June 28 2011 04:56 Euronyme wrote:
Isn't that about protecting American interests? I highly doubt it's to look good in international media or whatever.
Right now to me it'd make more sence to pull it all back though.
well, look at Iraq and Libya. the US intervened not because of freedom and democracy but for self interest.
likewise, the USA went into Japan and Korea primarily to contain the communist threat and prevent them from having access to pacific ocean. there is nothing democratic about it. in fact, USA helped the Japanese right-wingers to suppress the Japanese Communist Party. even Martin Luther King was harassed because the FBI thought he was a commie. its just politics.
|
There is so much random pointless shit our government funds right now, it's rediculous. If they cut out all the rediculous funding where they literally have no idea what the money is actually used for, and ended these wars, we would be fine. The problem is, no one wants to stop getting their precious hand-outs from the government. Meanwhile, hard-working people are paying taxes into the system that are just used as handouts. Pretty stupid.
|
On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance.
Cute, but there's another story being told over on the other side of the fence called REALITY that's being told as we speak.
You essentially have this misplaced expectation that the US should trust everyone else's politicians and militaries more than the locals do, in the vain hope that humans aren't going to be humans and will see the common good over their own personal gain. Good luck with that.
|
On June 27 2011 16:20 Kreb wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is, no president and presidential candidate will risk even suggesting the words "tax increase" to the public (at least until their second term) as that will mean the end of their career. Even if they do attempt to raise taxes, Congress is so divided and, to put it bluntly, fucked up at the moment that it's highly unlikely that any reasonable change can be made. Until the public as a whole wises up, there's really only so much our leadership can do. This is what I've always been thinking too. The leaders represent the people's opinions. If the people would start demanding tax increases (lol) or cutting costs everywhere to pay the debt and have a healthy economy, then leaders would eventually get it and start doing something about it. But yeah, if one guy offers better military/school/healthcare/infrastructure/whatever and the other guy says he cant afford it beacuse he wants to pay off the debt, who will get elected? People aren't very economically responsible on a state or country level, hell some even have problems being responsible for their own economy. And until the people start to actually want a healthy economy over "give me more now", politicians can't do anything about it no matter they want it or not.
a majority DO want a progressive tax increase.
I think something like 73% are in favour of higher corporate taxes and higher income taxes for the top earners.
Unfortunately those are also the people with the most influence.
|
On June 28 2011 05:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance. Cute, but there's another story being told over on the other side of the fence called REALITY that's being told as we speak. You essentially have this misplaced expectation that the US should trust everyone else's politicians and militaries more than the locals do, in the vain hope that humans aren't going to be humans and will see the common good over their own personal gain. Good luck with that.
Cuz... afghanistan was for defense... and...iraq was for defense... and libya...defense... and overthrowing the haitian government...defense... yup...
Course try telling that to Farmer A when he's in one of his moods, locked in the cellar with sentry guns on his roof with his sons telling them about the bogeymen outside.
|
Just a heads up guys, 14 trillion in debt means that each person in america is roughly 40k in debt...
Also, Social Security has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus. I also don't understand how some of you propose screwing the middle class by cutting Social Security and Medicare. I mean, a strong middle class means a beastly economy (* macro *). Trickle down is total fail. In Starcraft terms, trickle down is like rushing to BC's every game and thinking you will win in the long term (giving money to the high tier while having an extremely weak tier one and tier two). Only results in bad macro and poor mid game.
|
On June 28 2011 05:58 Michaelwins wrote:
Just a heads up guys, 14 trillion in debt means that each person in america is roughly 40k in debt...
Also, Social Security has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus. I also don't understand how some of you propose screwing the middle class by cutting Social Security and Medicare. I mean, a strong middle class means a beastly economy (* macro *). Trickle down is total fail. In Starcraft terms, trickle down is like rushing to BC's every game and thinking you will win in the long term (giving money to the high tier while having an extremely weak tier one and tier two). Only results in bad macro and poor mid game.
The Social Security 'crisis' is manufactured. Its a very common pattern for privatizing public things that have a lot of support. Not just in the US, but worldwide. Manufacture a crisis, scare the population, pose privatization as the solution, negate opposition, profit.
EDIT: oo, Jack Rasmus just came out with a short article on just this topic: http://www.zcommunications.org/contents/179306
heres a good snippet on how Social Security could be funded for the next 75 years.
1. Eliminate the current cap of $106,800 on earnings for the 12.4%. This would raise revenue to cover 86% of the projected shortfall for the next 75 years.
2. Raise the payroll tax rate by 1% more both for employee and employer, to 14.4%, in stages over the next 20 years. According to the Social Security Trustees latest 2011 report, the government would be able to pay the current package of benefits for everyone who reaches retirement age at least through 2085. So items 1 and 2 amount to 186% of needed funded.
3. I then propose to use the excess 86% funding to reduce the retirement age to 64 for everyone, instead of the current 67. Why reduce it 3 years instead of raise the retirement age three years? To open up more jobs for young workers who are suffering the worst unemployment. Today, the fastest growing segment of the work force are those over age 65, as more older workers are forced by economic conditions to continue working past 67 or are forced to re-enter the labor force just to pay their bills. With a decent, higher level of benefits they could retire earlier.
4. As for the Medicare shortfall, that can be solved simply by raising the current 2.9% Medicare payroll tax by a paltry 0.25% for workers and employers each for the next ten years, then another 0.25% each starting year eleven for the second decade. That’s a mere 1% raise over the next 20 years.
5. Better and simpler yet, make everyone pay the 14.4% and 3.4% for the next ten years, not just those earning wages and salaries. Make all forms of capital incomes (capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, etc.) pay the 14.4% and 3.4%. Do that and you not only solve the so-called entitlement funding crisis for the remainder of this century but you have now raised enough additional revenue to pay for single payer health care for all, as well as fix social security retirement and disability for the next 75 years and even increase the level of those benefits and/or reduce the retirement age.
|
On June 28 2011 05:58 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 05:51 Bibdy wrote:On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance. Cute, but there's another story being told over on the other side of the fence called REALITY that's being told as we speak. You essentially have this misplaced expectation that the US should trust everyone else's politicians and militaries more than the locals do, in the vain hope that humans aren't going to be humans and will see the common good over their own personal gain. Good luck with that. Cuz... afghanistan was for defense... and...iraq was for defense... and libya...defense... and overthrowing the haitian government...defense... yup... Course try telling that to Farmer A when he's in one of his moods, locked in the cellar with sentry guns on his roof with his sons telling them about the bogeymen outside.
Yes, yes, no, and what? Foreign countries piss and moan when the US does nothing, and they piss and moan when they intervene. It's the age old adage for anyone in power and consequently its easy to ignore a lot of it.
If the US (in collaboration with the UN and many other countries around the world, FYI) didn't intervene in Libya, we'd be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't intervene to stop the genocide of the Libyan people in the streets of Tripoli. Did we learn nothing from the late 1930s?!?!
If we didn't go in and take out Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, we'd be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't do enough to help stop the next major terrorist attack.
If we didn't invade Iraq, we'd be sitting here arguing over how to spend all of this cash the US is sitting on.
If we disarmed our military we'd be sitting here wondering why China came over for a big tea party, why Israel and many other places in the world are now a giant, smoking crater.
Sometimes I wish we'd pull the military out of other countries just so we could all learn from the mistakes of the Roman Empire again.
|
On June 28 2011 05:58 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 05:51 Bibdy wrote:On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance. Cute, but there's another story being told over on the other side of the fence called REALITY that's being told as we speak. You essentially have this misplaced expectation that the US should trust everyone else's politicians and militaries more than the locals do, in the vain hope that humans aren't going to be humans and will see the common good over their own personal gain. Good luck with that. Cuz... afghanistan was for defense... and...iraq was for defense... and libya...defense... and overthrowing the haitian government...defense... yup... Course try telling that to Farmer A when he's in one of his moods, locked in the cellar with sentry guns on his roof with his sons telling them about the bogeymen outside.
On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
Yes, yes, no, and what? Foreign countries piss and moan when the US does nothing, and they piss and moan when they intervene. It's the age old adage for anyone in power and consequently its easy to ignore a lot of it.
foreign countries? they piss and moan? which countries? what did they say? Sounds like a generalization without any substance to argue your stance. If not, its vague to the point of being meaningless
On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
If the US (in collaboration with the UN and many other countries around the world, FYI) didn't intervene in Libya, we'd be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't intervene to stop the genocide of the Libyan people in the streets of Tripoli. Did we learn nothing from the late 1930s?!?!
Firstly, what? *about face* You're comparing a civil war to Nazi Germany? Seriously? You're comparing a public uprising with aggressive expansionism?
Secondly, ask yourself why the US isn't intervening elsewhere which exhibits similar circumstance. Egypt for example. Why Libya?
Thirdly, why didn't the US intervene to stop the genocide in a slough of other countries without abundant oil wealth when it happened previously.
On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
If we didn't go in and take out Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, we'd be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't do enough to help stop the next major terrorist attack.
This is in my opinion fairly wrongheaded. Even CIA officials have said that invading Iraq and Afghanistan has increased, rather than decreased the threat of attacks.
On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
If we didn't invade Iraq, we'd be sitting here arguing over how to spend all of this cash the US is sitting on.
If we disarmed our military we'd be sitting here wondering why China came over for a big tea party.
I fail to see the connection between this statement and the rest of your post, or the rest of the thread for that matter. Perhaps it made sense to you but you didn't do your due diligence to make it accessible to the rest of the viewership, or you tried to edit your post and inadvertently made it nonsensical in the process without proofreading. It has happened to me before. I certainly don't think you intended your post to read like what some more emotional than me might call incoherent paranoid delusional ramblings.
Regarding Haiti, its not surprising you hadn't heard that they organized a coup d'etat to eliminate the democratically elected Aristide government along with France and Canada, escorted him to Africa, and then installed a virtual puppet regime. It wasn't on Fox or CNN, or even MSNBC.
Finally, lets not derail this thread further. Debt, not foreign policy. This will be my last post on this 'aside'.
|
apparently the united states should be spending more money on education.
|
On June 28 2011 06:51 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 05:58 caradoc wrote:On June 28 2011 05:51 Bibdy wrote:On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance. Cute, but there's another story being told over on the other side of the fence called REALITY that's being told as we speak. You essentially have this misplaced expectation that the US should trust everyone else's politicians and militaries more than the locals do, in the vain hope that humans aren't going to be humans and will see the common good over their own personal gain. Good luck with that. Cuz... afghanistan was for defense... and...iraq was for defense... and libya...defense... and overthrowing the haitian government...defense... yup... Course try telling that to Farmer A when he's in one of his moods, locked in the cellar with sentry guns on his roof with his sons telling them about the bogeymen outside. Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
Yes, yes, no, and what? Foreign countries piss and moan when the US does nothing, and they piss and moan when they intervene. It's the age old adage for anyone in power and consequently its easy to ignore a lot of it.
foreign countries? they piss and moan? which countries? what did they say? Sounds like a generalization without any substance to argue your stance. If not, its vague to the point of being meaningless Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
If the US (in collaboration with the UN and many other countries around the world, FYI) didn't intervene in Libya, we'd be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't intervene to stop the genocide of the Libyan people in the streets of Tripoli. Did we learn nothing from the late 1930s?!?!
Firstly, what? *about face* You're comparing a civil war to Nazi Germany? Seriously? You're comparing a public uprising with aggressive expansionism? Secondly, ask yourself why the US isn't intervening elsewhere. Why Libya? Thirdly, why didn't the US intervent to stop the genocide in a slough of other countries without abundant oil wealth when it happened. Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
If we didn't go in and take out Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, we'd be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't do enough to help stop the next major terrorist attack.
This is in my opinion fairly wrongheaded. Even CIA officials have said that invading Iraq and Afghanistan has increased, rather than decreased the threat of attacks. Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
If we didn't invade Iraq, we'd be sitting here arguing over how to spend all of this cash the US is sitting on.
If we disarmed our military we'd be sitting here wondering why China came over for a big tea party.
I fail to see the connection between this statement and the rest of your post, or the rest of the thread for that matter. Perhaps it made sense to you but you didn't do your due diligence to make it accessible to the rest of the viewership, or you tried to edit your post and inadvertently made it nonsensical in the process without proofreading. It has happened to me before. I certainly don't think you intended your post to read like what some more emotional than me might call incoherent paranoid delusional ramblings. Regarding Haiti, its not surprising you hadn't heard that they organized a coup d'etat to eliminate the democratically elected Aristide government along with France and Canada. It wasn't on Fox or CNN.
Sorry, I should have said "TL posters who like to claim they speak for their entire country, and on occasion, the rest of the planet outside of the US, piss and moan etc etc.". It's easy to blur the lines between a guy with 'Country X' and his title and a large subset of the country when they claim they represent them on a regular basis. Anecdotal and incidental evidence tends to be a favourite.
Thirdly, why didn't the US intervene to stop the genocide in a slough of other countries without abundant oil wealth when it happened previously.
Case in point. Apparently the US is the only country involved in Libya right now. That's pretty big news to me. How did you obtain this information? Why isn't Canada helping out in Syria, hmm? France? Britain? What makes the US special? Starting to see my point?
That was kind of the point. It was hyperbole and the kind of argument that people would be spewing forth had the US, UN, and oh hey, all of us, not intervened in Libya. But, that's besides the point. We'd still be sitting here arguing over why the US didn't do enough to help stop the slaughters in the streets of Tripoli by taking out key military targets in Libya. Or do you assume this is all just a precedent to an invasion by the US, nevermind all the other western nations involved in the operation, right? I'm sure the US is entirely, 100% to blame for the clusterfuck that was Iraq, too?
I mentioned that snippet about Iraq, because you mentioned it and you would have no doubt given me shit for it had I omitted it, just as you're giving me shit now for having mentioned it, and the, I feel rather obvious revelation that I don't agree with that particular war and never did from the start. It seems as though you just want to start a fight.
Same with China. That silly little story of yours about the Farmers predicates a situation where the US has built up an military for no particularly good reason, all under the guise of defense. It must be fun living outside of reality in the middle of the day.
The whole Haiti thing might have been more obvious to me had I been living in the country the year it happened (2004) and owned a TV, but hey, little things like that tend to slip through the cracks. Certainly don't remember seeing it on the UK news. Guess they couldn't have given less of a shit, or its just wild speculation and falsehoods. Nah, must have been a US expansionist invasion of another smaller country and the US bought out the media in every country. Damn they're good.
|
On June 28 2011 06:35 Bibdy wrote:
Sometimes I wish we'd pull the military out of other countries just so we could all learn from the mistakes of the Roman Empire again.
What?
We would be like the Eastern Roman Empire? So... after we leave our expensive expansive imperialist problems behind us we look forward to hundred of years of regional dominance and economic prosperity and the only threat we need to avoid is long wars of attrition with Muslim empires? Now that would almost solve our debt problem right up. I mean GO USA!! but I think this whole story that our military spending is wholly justified since the end of the cold war is pretty ridiculous and Eisenhower would agree with me. After all, we learned "the arsenal of democracy" was good enough in the early 40s and I don't see why it wouldn't be again; instead of a military industrial complex.
Also the US has a spending problem and a revenue problem. As a percent of GDP revenues are lower than they have been for decades. I feel that this is appropriate given the economic situation but the debt level is rising too rapidly but the debt problem tends to be either ignored or blown out of proportion However, foreign troop commitments are an easy place to start reducing spending particularly in Europe and Japan.
|
My two cents: Is the debt an issue? Sure, its an elephant in the room thats going to rear its head in the years ahead but compared with the current economic condition, its not the most serious problem America is facing right now because the government is still able to make interest payments on the debt. (unless the debt ceiling isn't raised, then we are in for a world of shit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
