BF2S Forums Why are we involved in Libya?

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No we don't. I was busy today when you asked seeing as I work and all.

You mean you are an electrical engineer and you work on nothing involved with the govt.?  Nothing? The govt. does not utilize anything your company does? What is it you work on then?

We provide engineering support to construction firms. If they have issues, they subcontract out to us instead of having their own engineers on staff. Has the company worked with the city of New York in the past? Probably. Are they currently? No. NYC happens to be broke. Most of our work comes from the burgeoning luxury apartment industry since they have a nice loophole exempting them from rent control.

Even if we have taken money from the government in the past it doesn't make us equal to a bunch of leeches like the defense industry. We survive and profit quite well without taking a penny from the taxpayer.

Would be great if I worked in the defense industry, however,  I don't.

CAn I assume that, because of your loathing of anyone that works with or for the govt.,you would instantly quit your job the second the govt. hired your company? Or was your loathing just a desperate attempt to find fault in my life you can attack for karma points?

Wonder where the US would be right now if not for a strong national defense...hmmmmmmmmm

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-24 19:40:26)

Shocking wrote:

Dunno, maintaining or even increasing the government expenditure on the defense industry while the cold war has been over for 20 years seemed absolutely pointless to me. Could've put all that money to much better use, vast majority of the military doesn't even get used while you're involved in 3 different conflicts worldwide.

Not to mention the thousands of bases you have placed everywhere for... little reason at all. If the issue were basing rights just in case, there still wouldn't be a need to have US military personell in hundreds of different locations across the EU - or anywhere else for that matter.

When we can fight two wars simultaneously while keeping 2/3 -3/4 of our military home you know we have too many people in our military

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Would be great if I worked in the defense industry, however,  I don't.

CAn I assume that, because of your loathing of anyone that works with or for the govt.,you would instantly quit your job the second the govt. hired your company?

Wonder where the US would be right now if not for a strong national defense...hmmmmmmmmm

We'd be just fine. We have no enemies lowing. None that can reach us anyway. It's just people like your paranoid fagot ass self that keep our taxes so high so you can somehow add the size of our military to your lack of dicksize. I loathe you lowing. At least Hunter/Jumper and ATG were mostly retarded. You're almost intelligent enough to know that you're mostly retarded but you don't care. I understand fully why you feel the need to carry in real life. It's the tiny dick syndrome coupled with a lack of friends.

sorry you feel that way.......however you didn't answer my question...would you quit your job because the govt. hired your company? Ya know because you don't want to be a leech and all?

lowing, you've spent your entire adult life on welfare and yet you bitch at others and put them down. You piss on black people for taking a few hundred dollars a month in section eight while raking in thousands of your own. Don't try to paint me with the same brush as you.

And yeah, I saw your post earlier. You aren't good enough to lick CamPoe's intellectual jockstrap.

Last edited by Jay (2011-03-24 19:45:27)

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

We'd be just fine. We have no enemies lowing. None that can reach us anyway. It's just people like your paranoid fagot ass self that keep our taxes so high so you can somehow add the size of our military to your lack of dicksize. I loathe you lowing. At least Hunter/Jumper and ATG were mostly retarded. You're almost intelligent enough to know that you're mostly retarded but you don't care. I understand fully why you feel the need to carry in real life. It's the tiny dick syndrome coupled with a lack of friends.

sorry you feel that way.......however you didn't answer my question...would you quit your job because the govt. hired your company? Ya know because you don't want to be a leech and all?

lowing, you've spent your entire adult life on welfare and yet you bitch at others and put them down. You piss on black people for taking a few hundred dollars a month in section eight while raking in thousands of your own. Don't try to paint me with the same brush as you.

So, you wouldn't quit your job if the govt. hired your company, but that would be somehow ....different.......got it. I have to assume that, since answering the question is something you really don't want to do.

I spent my entire adult life as an aircraft mechanic working for various airlines and companies. Not sure how being a mechanic puts me on welfare like "black people", that is only something you can try and rationalize. Good luck.


except when Campoe tried to make that argument that working for the govt. makes you a leech on welfare, he had to admit his company did exactly that. take on govt. contracts. Hardly the corner an "intellect' like Campoe should back himself into.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-24 20:11:30)

Shocking wrote:

His gripe is with companies that cannot sustain themselves without government funding, not occasionally taking a contract while still getting the vast majority of your revenue through private projects.

no his gripe is that he has nothing real to argue against, so he has to try to compare WORKING as an aircraft mechanic as being the same thing as being on welfare and sitting around the house waiting for my govt. cheese, that, and my personal relationships and apparently my penis size.

and what is the argument against a company that builds it growth on providing a service to the people?

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-24 20:03:54)

Varegg wrote:

Interesting article in The Guardian today ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ibya-deals

In the US, fame and wealth are so highly revered nobody cares to remember any unpleasantness that may have preceded them.

That is true to some degree.. but certainly not always ("nobody").

Varegg wrote:

Not always and not everyone clearly

Not according to Mr. Chancellor

Jay wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

....probably?

You're seriously going to sit here and argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs? A few medical procedures are worth the price of millions of lives in the past century alone? Hardly.

Now, you're either profiting off of the war industry or you're one of those wankers that jerks off to old military histories about Wellington and Monty. Perhaps your one of those that gets his jollies by dressing up in period dress and ramming a fake bayonet into his opponents abdomen. So which is it? No rational human being can possibly make the ridiculous statement that war is in any way profitable for the human race. This is doubly so for people that have actually experienced war as many of us on this forum have. So kindly take your opinion and shove off to the nearest BNP rally.

No I am not saying by any means that the pros outweigh the cons. Not at all. However I am disagreeing with the idea that there is absolutely nothing at all that comes out of it.

Looking at those numbers one can't really wonder when China and Russia become so weird every time there's talk about missile shields and so on. As for the EU, with the formation of a unified military, it's not far from becoming a Federation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

so people are tossing around the word 'genocide' and 'slaughtering his own people' and all that other crap is just unproven BS.  sad really.

He didn't start slaughtering until they started rebelling.

Maybe they should think about the big picture and not rebel?

Well that's flat out nonsense, he started murdering protesters in the street. Then they rebelled. That was the entire reason there was an uprising in Bengazi.

FEOS wrote:

That number on the right is percentage of GDP. Russia is the closest in percentage of GDP, but they're the farthest away in terms of real dollars. The EU consolidation is shit, tbh. Until they get a working, unified military structure, comparing the EU as a monolithic entity to others is a cop-out.

So the US could cut their defense spending in half--to less than that of the UK, as a percentage of GDP--and still outspend China by 3x. And our allies would scream at the amount of "not doing stuff" that would entail on our part.

I understand what you mean, but there's no need to have a similar % of GDP expenditure to Russia or China if you can still be on top by a clear margin while in comparison spending less; that should be seen as an advantage. There hasn't been a clear enemy to the US, either, I don't understand why it would be necessary to keep up the same defense spending pattern even though the soviet union collapsed. There was no threat anymore, there is no real threat that could touch the US in a conventional war, and dealing with terrorism only requires a minimal amount of your forces.

I was copying the stats from wiki, combined EU expenditure was noted there - and no there's not really an actual value to that statistic, apart from showing that even if we were to combine chinese, russian and EU defense expenditure + probably the rest of the world, the US still comes out on top.

You could also look at reducing your def spending from another angle; it will force your allies to increase their own. Which, really, is necessary - most of the EU countries are under the mandated 2% by NATO, I believe Germany spends about 1.2%, and most countries around or below 1.5%. Steps to integrating the forces with eachother have been very, very slow as well. Figuring out a chain of command without US help, as we can see in Libya, seems to be impossible. Why care about the temporary bitching you'd be subject to? There's more than enough arguments you can bring to the table as to why you shouldn't pay for someone else's defense.

I can see why it would be hard though as an actual decrease would mean tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people being layed off.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-25 05:23:51)

Dilbert is blatantly trolling here.

Well TBH Dilbert the EU spending pattern is terrible, the system absolutely needs change - countries can barely pay for their services and if not they keep loaning. Debt culture.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-25 05:25:53)