|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 469
|
|
|
You know, shame on both political parties for not making us energy independent. We've only been talking about it for 40 years. At least we have the fn spotted owl!
In any case, it seems like Israel will strike very soon.
Guildmaster
|
|
|
|
 | |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 206
|
|
|
KV wrote:
You know, shame on both political parties for not making us energy independent. We've only been talking about it for 40 years. At least we have the fn spotted owl!
In any case, it seems like Israel will strike very soon.
I think it's inevitable, unfortunately. Iran is becoming a bit too big for its britches. Not that I think they'll go quietly- I think many may be underestimating the kind of destruction they can do before it's all said and done.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 8/19/2011
Posts: 112
|
|
|
i certainly hope we don't... im tired of going into desserts =/. I mean if we absolutly NEED to go to war with somebody, why can't it be like columbia or brazil... somewhere nice so i don't have to entertain myself with camel spiders anymore =/
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 52
|
|
|
Should of rolled in there when we were there. Wasted a lot of time and money. But then, that's what they wanted.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 24
|
|
|
Based upon the rhetoric, sanctions, and parading our carrier groups around there, it sure looks imminent. But honestly I don't see the point. If ass backwards North Korea was able to get a nuke, it's inevitable these guys will anyway. Hell they are surrounded by countries with nukes that we treat better, so I'm not surprised they want one too.
Their leadership might talk a lot of shit, but I don't understand the claim that they'd actually use one of them even if they got it, especially on Israel.
1) There are ton of Islamic holy sites in Israel, no way are they going to nuke those
2) There are of Muslims living in and around Israel, they aren't going to nuke them
3) The entire goal of kicking out the Israelis is so they can get the territory back, what good would it to do turn it into an unusable nuclear wasteland?
4) The retaliation on Iran would ten-fold if not more, it would be utter suicide. And while the Iranian mullahs might strap bombs to young dumb kids to blow up innocents, they aren't suicidal themselves and sacrifice their whole power structure.
Of course, then there's the whole thing where we're dead broke and can't afford it. But apparently that doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 120
|
|
|
let them fight, why do we have to police everyone...
*edit* Not to mention we dont even have enough money to fight our current wars, we have to borrow from a communist country!
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 8/15/2011
Posts: 94
|
|
|
Every US president since WW II has had his war, from Granda, Panama and Serbia, to Iraq(s) and Vietnam... Why would Obama be different? Yes he inherited two wars, but he needs one to call his own... It fuels our economy!
And there is no better time then election year. I'd say this spring, when weather gets nice and nights clear, Israel does something we 'publicly condemn' and end up being forced to side with them.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 9/20/2011
Posts: 25
|
|
|
Oh great, another completely manufactured crisis that totally needs the US to spend all of it's money responding too. How about no. Does no work for you?
If Israel wants to get all billy bad ass use all that state of the art military tech we've been giving them for 50+ years, then let 'em do it... by themselves. Meanwhile, we have a growing list of domestic problems that need much more of our public attention and funding.
Get NASA back on it's feet for fuck's sake. If you want to use United States taxpayer money on rockets and high tech aircraft, let's explore space on more than a shoestring budget. I assure you, there are more interesting discoveries to be had by exploration than are to be gained by bombing the shit out of some fuckstick in the middle east to the tune of 100 million dollars an hour for the next seven years. We run NASA for an entire year on what we spend making war in a week. Flip the budgetary tables and we'd have the entire damn solar system colonized already and we could leave these goat fucking holy warrior assholes to fight over their silly little arid shit holes while we work on big boy science and advancement.
Besides, I've already seen this sequel and it blows.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 938
|
|
|
well, at least defense is one area the federal government is actually directly tasked with. I don't have a problem with them spending a significant chunk %-wise of the budget on that.
As to whether or not we should be doing this or that in particular, I'm sure people could endlessly debate that and there would be as many opinions as people in the room. Not only whether or not to be involved but how to be involved and the overall approach.
Just saying that in general I don't have a big problem with a large chunk of the budget being spent on defense. Not to say there probably isn't a ton of waste in there and layers upon layers of government inefficiency.
As far as Iran, if Israel mixes it up, I think its clear we'll have their back. But that may be no small thing.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 9/30/2011
Posts: 116
|
|
|
Ruck wrote:
Oh great, another completely manufactured crisis that totally needs the US to spend all of it's money responding too. How about no. Does no work for you?
If Israel wants to get all billy bad ass use all that state of the art military tech we've been giving them for 50+ years, then let 'em do it... by themselves. Meanwhile, we have a growing list of domestic problems that need much more of our public attention and funding.
Get NASA back on it's feet for fuck's sake. If you want to use United States taxpayer money on rockets and high tech aircraft, let's explore space on more than a shoestring budget. I assure you, there are more interesting discoveries to be had by exploration than are to be gained by bombing the shit out of some fuckstick in the middle east to the tune of 100 million dollars an hour for the next seven years. We run NASA for an entire year on what we spend making war in a week. Flip the budgetary tables and we'd have the entire damn solar system colonized already and we could leave these goat fucking holy warrior assholes to fight over their silly little arid shit holes while we work on big boy science and advancement.
Besides, I've already seen this sequel and it blows.
This. All of this. Exactly.
And perhaps a bit more funding for medical research, too, and greater attention to securing our borders and creating a well-structured, and somewhat more rigorous immigration policy (such as Denmark's.)
But, with regard to war in Iran... That's the last thing we need. I'm praying it won't happen.
---Monsignor
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 352
|
|
|
Agree with Ruck 100%. And Ron Paul. When and why did the US become the world's police force?
And I have no problem spending money on "defense". But "defense" is a lot different than "offense". If they poke us, beat the piss out of them.
If they attack our allies, help them out.
But if Israel wants to start the fight, that should be on them.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 938
|
|
|
I don't think defense starts and ends at our borders alone. It seems reasonable to me that there could be "police force of the world" type actions that actually would be in our best interest, say helping allies, attempting to promote stability in regions which otherwise would be breeding grounds for activities which might then become an issue within our borders, etc.
Not to say that every such case is good or worhtwhile, just that I don't think I'd be as completely dismissive as the RP fans with the, "why are we the police force of the world?" position.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 24
|
|
|
Even if you are going to take the position that we are a noble force for good stopping genocides, atrocities, dictators abusing their people, etc., the reality is that we are horribly inconsistent in that role at best. Sure when a non-nuclear country with lots of oil is in turmoil or makes threatening remarks we're happy to "spread democracy" by bombing or invading them. But for some reason when it's a poor African country with no resources or China abusing Tibet, we have convenient amnesia and pretend it isn't even happening. I'm just not buying it anymore. I know Ron Paul is a long shot but he's the only person with a sane and honest foreign policy that I hear.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 120
|
|
|
I agree with Aza, Ive been trying to get Ron Paul elected for the past 3 terms! I also understand where you are coming from coder, and I partially agree. But like DL says, the reality is that it is inconsistent. Not to mention we have been at war since 2001, and we are 14 and a half trillion dollars in debt. We have roadways(yes i know its state, but we do get some funding from government) homeless, boarders, medicine costs etc going up. Since obama has been president all his numbers went ass backwards. Unemployment is up, debt is up, costs of insurance has sky rocketed thanks to his ass-backwards medical proposal that has companies scared etc. This current president is on vacation in hawaii more times that i can count, and he is signing shit like the NDAA! Go Ron Paul. I would break down in tears if he won.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/15/2011
Posts: 94
|
|
|
I completely agree with Ruck, I was just stating what I think will hapen based on history and I don't necessaraly agree with that policy. War cost = jobs in USA.
I also agree with Coder that defence should cost large chunk (%) of budget, I just have beef with how is it spent:
- Why do we have 13 carrier groups (only our allies have 1 each, Brits and French, Russia has one and China has none) and we keep building new one every five years (two next ones are already named and docked in Newport News, Va), when our enemy is the CAVES :) We build carriers that cost gazilion billion each and China builds $10M missiles that can take them out.
- Our Congress completely and only operates on re-elections goals, inscluding defence and budget. Only issue for Congress is PORK, where the jobs are (in their home base), so all these fights about defence and where the carriers are based from - is about jobs for their constituents ($400M per carrier is estimate for local economy boost), nothing to do with security (FL wants four carriers moved so 'someone' would not take our Atlantic fleet out ala Peral Harbor)... Who? China? We have not had a Navy ship fired upon at sea - since WW II !!! Doesn't mean we don't need them, but lets be realistic how we used them.
- We build tanks and park them in Germany (another WW II habit) to protect who? West half of Germany from East side of the same country? At the same time our boys in Iraq ride in un-armoed Hamvees and get hurt by cheap IEDs...
- F16/F18 planes are 30 years old and have no match in the world still, you give them new engines and computers and they rule skies for a long time to come. But instead we develop new tecnologies (F22 and F35) at cost of billions and $500M each plane - to stop production after only few years because of different issues...
- Our whole Afgan war has been fought by Spec Ops - yet we allow one downed helicpter to take out 30+ Green Barrets - that is the future of war that unofrtunately does not equal $$$ and Pentagon will hide this fact.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/26/2011
Posts: 68
|
|
|
Ruck wrote:
Oh great, another completely manufactured crisis that totally needs the US to spend all of it's money responding too. How about no. Does no work for you?
I haven't heard Ruck speak in years but I'll be damned if I didn't read this in his voice.
Also I agree 100%. I also think it's unlikely we'll go to war in the next several years. Worst case scenario they surprise the world by demonstrating a nuclear weapon and an ICBM all in the same day. If Israel retaliates with weapons them it could put the US in a bad position but I think cooler heads will prevail. I do believe we'll be more likely to go to war if the GOP does very well this election.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 24
|
|
|
If you want yourself or your children to be a debt slaves like the Greeks are today or second-hand warmongers controlled by chickenhawk neocons, go ahead and vote for anyone but Ron Paul. The wizard's curtain is pulled back in this brief moment, we'll see if folks are really interested in taking off the blinders.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/26/2011
Posts: 68
|
|
|
Paul did an excellent job last night expressing why going to war with Iran is a terrible idea. He's not going to win the nomination but I hope his words sink into the minds of the American people.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/20/2011
Posts: 85
|
|
|
Ron Paul can not win.
Time you enjoy Wasting is not wasted time.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/16/2011
Posts: 938
|
|
|
see the below link. right now, RP is only ahead of Hunstman who isn't even running anymore. Of course that could all change, but he needs to start winning something.
Wall Street Journal 2012 GOP Delegate Tracker
Personally I think any of them would be better than the incumbent. I'm not sure any of them are the ideal picture of a candidate many of us want, but I certainly don't want a second term.
But I love a lot of what RP says. He actually points the discussion back to the constitution. And points out the fact that, NO the federal government does not exist to solve all the problems faced in our nation and should operate only within its constitutional authority.
|
|
|
|