So you're a communist? You want the government to spend 400 billion USD on banning SUVs and pickup trucks?usmarine2007 wrote:
I agree. First step is with the American people. Get rid of SUV's and pick-up trucks unless they are needed for work, and then I will take this debate seriously.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How many ways can you spend $400 Billion in government revenue?...
Well, I hate to sound callous, but I really don't give a shit about these people. I care about America and how we fair in a rapidly globalizing world. I don't see such heavy expenses in Iraq as being something that helps us, when compared to the other things we could spend the money on.ATG wrote:
Its worth the cost if it pays off in the long run by the area being A) more prosperous and democratic, b) having a functioning economy with respect for property rights and rights based not on sectarian divides but by common grounds.
The area being stable, the people having access to goods and services and quality of life will ultimately bring peace and stability to the region. Or at least it wont hurt.
People say they don't want our style of government. Fine, but we've gone ahead and done it anyway.
In the years to come one of two things will happen; Americans will be departed and oil independant of the region, and Islamic tribal rule shall prevail, or, the changes we have initiated will succeed and the surrounding peoples of other nations shall demand the same freedoms and commerce.
The former dooms the people of the region to suffering and lack of development, and the latter may help the people to have a fair share of the worlds bounty once again.
( the more beer I drink the thinkier I get)
For example, we've made far more progress in Afghanistan. Why not spend the money there instead and crush what's left of the Taliban? That would be more valid of an operation than the continuing chaos of Iraq.
Clinton launched cruise missiles into Iraq and let planes bomb various targets. My point is, if it was not important, why would he do that?jonsimon wrote:
I chose bush because he was in power when the US invaded Iraq to the ends of establishing a puppet government to protect the trade of oil in the US dollar. Clinton didn't do that, so I didn't include him.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look. Why is it just Bush? Why did Clinton send troops to the Kuwait/Iraq border in 1998 if that region was not important to the US?jonsimon wrote:
You could spend it supporting the US economy using a plethera of automatic stabilizers to bolster the economy against the inevitable fall of the oildollar. Or you could spend it hopelessly trying to set up a puppet government in a country that made the switch. We already know which one bush chose.
And also, eliminating SUV's and Trucks is great, but that only delays the problem.
That's why we have problems... we procrastinate. we need to make change NOW, but unfortunately, the ball is in a very poor administration's court.
That's why we have problems... we procrastinate. we need to make change NOW, but unfortunately, the ball is in a very poor administration's court.
Because even Clinton made mistakes.... If he had invaded Iraq, I would be cursing him just as much as I curse Bush.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look. Why is it just Bush? Why did Clinton send troops to the Kuwait/Iraq border in 1998 if that region was not important to the US?jonsimon wrote:
You could spend it supporting the US economy using a plethera of automatic stabilizers to bolster the economy against the inevitable fall of the oildollar. Or you could spend it hopelessly trying to set up a puppet government in a country that made the switch. We already know which one bush chose.
Airstrikes are a much better approach than invasion -- and cheaper too.usmarine2007 wrote:
Clinton launched cruise missiles into Iraq and let planes bomb various targets. My point is, if it was not important, why would he do that?jonsimon wrote:
I chose bush because he was in power when the US invaded Iraq to the ends of establishing a puppet government to protect the trade of oil in the US dollar. Clinton didn't do that, so I didn't include him.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look. Why is it just Bush? Why did Clinton send troops to the Kuwait/Iraq border in 1998 if that region was not important to the US?
But ineffective and all it did was piss off bin laden and his band of merry men.Turquoise wrote:
Airstrikes are a much better approach than invasion -- and cheaper too.usmarine2007 wrote:
Clinton launched cruise missiles into Iraq and let planes bomb various targets. My point is, if it was not important, why would he do that?jonsimon wrote:
I chose bush because he was in power when the US invaded Iraq to the ends of establishing a puppet government to protect the trade of oil in the US dollar. Clinton didn't do that, so I didn't include him.
And my point is, it's irrelevant. This war is motivated by the Iraqi switch to the Euro that occured before it. I only mentioned Bush because he is factually the president in power when we invaded. As far as I am concerned, the US does not have the military might to keep the whole of OPEC and the middle eastern oil nations from switching to the Euro, we'll have a tough time invading Iran as it is. As such, the switch is inevitable and I think the money spent desperately trying to delay it is better spent preparing domestically for the economic decline associated.usmarine2007 wrote:
Clinton launched cruise missiles into Iraq and let planes bomb various targets. My point is, if it was not important, why would he do that?jonsimon wrote:
I chose bush because he was in power when the US invaded Iraq to the ends of establishing a puppet government to protect the trade of oil in the US dollar. Clinton didn't do that, so I didn't include him.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look. Why is it just Bush? Why did Clinton send troops to the Kuwait/Iraq border in 1998 if that region was not important to the US?
A lot of things pissed off Bin Laden, but honestly, I think pissing him off is a good thing. We shouldn't change our lives and tactics just because it pisses off people, we should change when it becomes a bad investment. That's what Iraq has become in my mind.usmarine2007 wrote:
But ineffective and all it did was piss off bin laden and his band of merry men.Turquoise wrote:
Airstrikes are a much better approach than invasion -- and cheaper too.usmarine2007 wrote:
Clinton launched cruise missiles into Iraq and let planes bomb various targets. My point is, if it was not important, why would he do that?
Bin Laden would be pissed at us even if we left the entire Middle East. I'm not trying to appease him; I just want to minimize the number of followers he and others like him can get. More war just means more terrorists.
Trade and alternative energy research are the solutions, not war.
Basically, the US needs to know when to get it's fist out of a country's ass (Vietnam, Iraq...) and when intervention will SAVE lives (WW2, Darfur, Sudan, Rwanda)
Being a country with so many resources and so much power, it should be up to us to play robin hood, even when we are sacrificing our own wealth to give to others.
Being a country with so many resources and so much power, it should be up to us to play robin hood, even when we are sacrificing our own wealth to give to others.
Last edited by djphetal (2007-01-11 19:03:23)
It was much more stable before the US moved in.usmarine2007 wrote:
Nope. I am saying that region needs to be stable in order for the world to survive....at least they way it lives right now. Have they made it stable.....nope.Turquoise wrote:
So, you're admitting that Iraq is about oil then?usmarine2007 wrote:
Do you use oil at all in your everyday life?
Right. That is why the UN had to babysit Saddam. Real stable.Bubbalo wrote:
It was much more stable before the US moved in.usmarine2007 wrote:
Nope. I am saying that region needs to be stable in order for the world to survive....at least they way it lives right now. Have they made it stable.....nope.Turquoise wrote:
So, you're admitting that Iraq is about oil then?
Dump that POS fence.. 60 Billion saved.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How much oil do 400 billion buy?usmarine2007 wrote:
Do you use oil at all in your everyday life?Turquoise wrote:
We spend far less on welfare than on the military and Iraq. How is spending on Iraq any different from "welfare" to Iraq?usmarine2007 wrote:
Dump welfare. There...money saved. kthx
based on what you have said is that you are Iraq because you need the middle east to be stable so you can use up their oil reserves rather than your own. hmmm very noble cause you got going there.usmarine2007 wrote:
I know we have enough oil here to survive. But we do not want to use up our oil until it is critical right?Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's the weird part. Most of our oil comes from other countries. Venezuela is our largest oil supplier.usmarine2007 wrote:
Nope. I am saying that region needs to be stable in order for the world to survive....at least they way it lives right now. Have they made it stable.....nope.
So again... how is Iraq relevant in the oil respect?
Not my cause. I am just a pawn.Vilham wrote:
based on what you have said is that you are Iraq because you need the middle east to be stable so you can use up their oil reserves rather than your own. hmmm very noble cause you got going there.usmarine2007 wrote:
I know we have enough oil here to survive. But we do not want to use up our oil until it is critical right?Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's the weird part. Most of our oil comes from other countries. Venezuela is our largest oil supplier.
So again... how is Iraq relevant in the oil respect?
This seems like another opportunity for me to voice my support for the "coal for oil" program..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Let me ask you a question. Being you a pawn, like you said, does that mean you did things that were against your own opinion and/or moral standards? If so, can you live with that? I disagree with you most of the time, but you are capable of thinking. So, how can you accomplish a task that you know is wrong?usmarine2007 wrote:
Not my cause. I am just a pawn.Vilham wrote:
based on what you have said is that you are Iraq because you need the middle east to be stable so you can use up their oil reserves rather than your own. hmmm very noble cause you got going there.usmarine2007 wrote:
I know we have enough oil here to survive. But we do not want to use up our oil until it is critical right?
Oh, nothing. I'm sure the Middle East has no effect on american gas pumps, since you get your oil from Venezuela...Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's the weird part. Most of our oil comes from other countries. Venezuela is our largest oil supplier.usmarine2007 wrote:
Nope. I am saying that region needs to be stable in order for the world to survive....at least they way it lives right now. Have they made it stable.....nope.Turquoise wrote:
So, you're admitting that Iraq is about oil then?
So again... how is Iraq relevant in the oil respect?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
And when it doesn't pay off, you'll have another anti-American hot-bed of terrorism in the middle east. Which will continue to disrupt global stability and not prove to be any benefit to the US for decades to come.ATG wrote:
Its worth the cost if it pays off in the long run by the area being A) more prosperous and democratic, b) having a functioning economy with respect for property rights and rights based not on sectarian divides but by common grounds.
It's not gonna work. It's just too anarchic over there. There needs to be rule with an iron fist. But the US won't promote anything like that in case they create another Saddam.
Education and Health Care, the two most important things a government should give to it's citizens.
Those and Justice and you have the whole thing.TeamZephyr wrote:
Education and Health Care, the two most important things a government should give to it's citizens.
Ah yes, should also chuck in Worker's Rights and a decent wage for all people and make it a big foursergeriver wrote:
Those and Justice and you have the whole thing.TeamZephyr wrote:
Education and Health Care, the two most important things a government should give to it's citizens.
What task did I do that was wrong?sergeriver wrote:
Let me ask you a question. Being you a pawn, like you said, does that mean you did things that were against your own opinion and/or moral standards? If so, can you live with that? I disagree with you most of the time, but you are capable of thinking. So, how can you accomplish a task that you know is wrong?usmarine2007 wrote:
Not my cause. I am just a pawn.Vilham wrote:
based on what you have said is that you are Iraq because you need the middle east to be stable so you can use up their oil reserves rather than your own. hmmm very noble cause you got going there.
You didn't answer, but by task I mean this war or any war, which you don't agree with.usmarine2007 wrote:
What task did I do that was wrong?sergeriver wrote:
Let me ask you a question. Being you a pawn, like you said, does that mean you did things that were against your own opinion and/or moral standards? If so, can you live with that? I disagree with you most of the time, but you are capable of thinking. So, how can you accomplish a task that you know is wrong?usmarine2007 wrote:
Not my cause. I am just a pawn.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How many ways can you spend $400 Billion in government revenue?...