BF2S Forums Gruesome murder of Afghan civilians by US troops

11 Bravo wrote:

well aware.  this state alone is prolly bigger than your country.  cant tame everything.  the Mississippi river starts here.  dyke that off?

Meh, necessity can get most things done. Last time we were in danger of a flood here was 94 or 95, water levels were insane. Lots and lots of rain + melt water from the alps and Germany in general entering the rivers (country is basically one big river delta). Didn't break back then though, don't remember the last time there was an actual flood. Probably long before I was born. Last famous one was in the 50s.

Guess it depends on whether the state is willing to relocate riverbanks / build levees + blockades everywhere. In case of regular floods I'd assume that it would be a good idea tbh.

You live in northern US right? Can imagine there's a lot of snow at winter.

If people are rarely directly affected by it I can see it's not worth it tbh. Floods down here just mean everyone's fucked.

Oh really? That's nice.

you still have a Janes subscription btw? Worth it?

11 Bravo wrote:

i have flood insurance.  chances of a flood where i live (we get floods all around here but my neighborhood hasnt had one in a long time) very small.

Your lender probably has an interest in the insurance racket.

no they are stupid people who drool in a cup, kmarion

yup

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Dilbert stop trolling jesus christ, not even you are this stupid. You've already been explained 10 times what the benefits actually are and why they make sense.

And you're getting people calling you out on your bullshit based on first hand experience.

Come on.

I understand the benefits, I'm asking who pays for it.
Jay is claiming its self-funding, I don't believe him.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi … ts/?page=2
$2.5bn a year from govt funds, that doesn't sound self-funding to me.

What do you mean who pays for it? Why is it you expect people to work for free? People expect pay and benefits for their efforts, why should it be any different for a service member?

If you are so appalled, why the hell are you not appalled at the 702 billion a year spent on welfare programs, where you are REALLY not getting anything for your money?

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm appalled by those too, saying they're much different is wrong though.

Also, the GI Bill isn't the only component of military welfare.

Not sure how, working for pay and benefits and sitting on your ass with your hand held out for your entitlement is the same thing. We will just have to agree to disagree on that I suppose.


Dilbert for you to claim that, you would have to say anyone that does anything for pay and benefits is on welfare. Yours and Jay's argument really makes no sense. (I mean old Jay, before he was exposed as a hypocrite)

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I keep saying, its workfare not welfare, much as prisoners do certain tasks in factories.
The finances don't always make sense but its better to have them busy than sitting on their asses.

If the govt is paying people to perform pointless tasks then thats workfare.

There is nothing pointless about a national defense Dilbert.

a city pays a fireman for what amounts to be 75 percent ( I would guess) of sitting on their ass, washing fire trucks and inspecting equipment. Why? to be prepared for when you really do need them. but let me guess, firefighter is workfare as well right?

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-24 00:27:28)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I keep saying, its workfare not welfare, much as prisoners do certain tasks in factories.
The finances don't always make sense but its better to have them busy than sitting on their asses.

If the govt is paying people to perform pointless tasks then thats workfare.

There is nothing pointless about a national defense Dilbert.

However, your military is so colossally bloated it can't realistically be intended for 'national defense'.
Since mainland america has never actually been attacked that obviously isn't the case.

That is like saying, you do not need to use dandruff shampoo because you don't have dandruff.

There is a reason why the US has never really been attacked Dilbert, do you really think we would have NEVER been invaded if not for our national defense?

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

There is nothing pointless about a national defense Dilbert.

However, your military is so colossally bloated it can't realistically be intended for 'national defense'.
Since mainland america has never actually been attacked that obviously isn't the case.

That is like saying, you do not need to use dandruff shampoo because you don't have dandruff.

There is a reason why the US has never really been attacked Dilbert, do you really think we would have NEVER been invaded if not for our national defense?

Not disputing your general point, but there's more to national defense than just keeping out an invasion. I don't think any country, let alone the US, would like to have another nation's superiority in military terms being used as implicit leverage when it comes to trade talks and the like.

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Has Canada ever been attacked?

What about Greenland?

Maybe you just don't have anything anyone would bother attacking you for?

Whoever is sitting on the ME oil wells is going to need to sell you their oil so thats hardly an issue either.

Anyway, on topic:

How the hell do we let these crazies into the military?

Dunno, is anyone addressing the quality of recruits, or is it the quality of their management once they're in?

didn't know Canada or Greenland was every our enemy.

Now then, ask me if Japan wold have ever attacked, or Germany.... They didn't seem to have much problem taking out countries ill prepared for their advancements.

We have not been attacked because we have a formidable military force. History has shown, even recent history, that countries without a strong military, or (allies with one to keep it current) get invaded.

the fact that you have two massive oceans either side helps, tbh. as i said before i'm not necessarily disagreeing with your above point but that, IMO, is a far bigger factor in why no one in their right mind has/would try to invade northern america from the outer.

Last edited by Spark (2011-04-24 01:03:37)

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

That is like saying, you do not need to use dandruff shampoo because you don't have dandruff.

There is a reason why the US has never really been attacked Dilbert, do you really think we would have NEVER been invaded if not for our national defense?

Not disputing your general point, but there's more to national defense than just keeping out an invasion. I don't think any country, let alone the US, would like to have another nation's superiority in military terms being used as implicit leverage when it comes to trade talks and the like.

If the US roll in the world wee only national defense, and not the defense of our allies as well, then maybe we wouldn't need such strength. Being the worlds police force is a massive undertaking Spark. and who made us the worlds police force? Nations that keep looking toward the US to do something on their behalf... Which is pretty much the majority of the free world.

As I said I'm not disagreeing. In fact I think the point I made there, viewed in isolation, supports your argument.