True, thanks for correcting me. Should you ever happen to make a post in german, I will make sure to return the favor if necessary.A threat is something which may harm you, or an expressed intention of causing harm.
A thread is a piece of string, or a sequential set of webpostings on a message board.
NO, engaging in DEFICIT SPENDING to try to "give democracy" to those who haven't earned it in the Middle East in the most socialistic, Wilsonian way possible is NOT a good use of America's resources. That is your OPINION, and it is seriously flawed to say the least.MSimon wrote:Transforming the Middle East is a good use of resources. More acceptable than bigger and better future wars. To me. You may prefer to wait until those future wars will materialize. The costs will be higher.UncleMatt wrote:You act as if spending $160 BILLION a year on a foreign country is a good thing. Lets see, what could we do with that money AT HOME? That sure would pay for a lot of honeywell design R&D, now wouldn't it? Let alone all of the other things that need funding in our nation, like our crumbling infrastructure, new roads, health care, green technology investment, the list goes on and on. But no, its better to try to "give" foreigners something they haven't earned in the most socialistic way possible by redistributing Amerfican wealth to Iraq? Gee, I recall over a BILLION dollars going missing in Iraq around 2006. I guess thats no big deal either, right, as long as it promotes your political agenda...MSimon wrote:If Iraq continues to improve its economy in 20 years it will look like a very wise decision. Just as South Korea was a debacle for Truman and is now considered a success story that helped the whole Asian region.
The pull out in Afghanistan (it is coming) will have an effect similar to our first pull out - dark forces will take over once we leave and new problems will emerge from that region. Possibly leading to the fall of Pakistan and nuclear weapons in the hands of the most crazy.
And NO, I wasn't referring to Congress when I referred to greedy people in America. I was referring to those who felt it necessary to take risk that violated their own corporate policies in an attempt to gain ever more wealth and power. Never mind the consequences to others, never mind the impact it would have on our economy if they guessed wrong. And what consquences did THEY suffer as a result? They floated down to their golf course on their golden parachutes, and deposited their many millions of dollars of ill gotten gain in their own bank accounts. They suffered no real consequences, that was left to the familes that had to go without a job, and without health care.
You can't avoid the issues. You can only postpone them.
You might like to watch the video here to see why:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... rfare.html
I can't wait until Obama pulls out of Afghanistan and the videos of women being shot in stadiums start trickling back. Of course we could do nothing and see what happens.
====
The Congress set up the game (the fannies and the CRA) to give the banks in INCENTIVE to do what was done. Blaming the bankers lets the real culprits off the hook. And Congress is going for round two of the crap that got us into round one.
Start here:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... d-buy.html
and then read some of my other posts on the subject:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/sea ... uld+Buy%22
You could also search - Chris Dodd Barney Frank Mortgage Crisis - for more.
You set up bad incentives you get bad results. How hard is that to understand?
Skipjack wrote:Well, I honestly think that it is your Tridents that give the North Koreans the willies more than your F22sThe F22 gives the North Koreans the willies.
I am pretty sure that this is what it would come down to anyway.
The F22s are not really a deterrent. I think that even your F16s or F18s would be doing just fine against anything that the North Koreans have.
As when they had to dig a used Apollo heat shield out of storage at the Smithsonian to relearn how to make heat shields for Constellation. What a giant leap backwards.Skipjack wrote:Some space tech has been dug out and redone decades later.
Yeah that was pretty sad. I am generally not a big fan of Constellation. I would cancel it and hand the job over to the new spacers. Some competitions in that area with the outlook on NASA and commercial contracts would do more for less money.As when they had to dig a used Apollo heat shield out of storage at the Smithsonian to relearn how to make heat shields for Constellation. What a giant leap backwards.
Japan and Germany weren't happy with us. And the S Koreans weren't in love with us either. And the Soviets certainly did not appreciate our efforts. Freedom works out best for everyone in the end.You might have the most noble intentions to do good to the people everywhere, but they dont see it that way. All it did was make you more enemies.
Actually, the long-term cost of Saddam in power was probably higher than intervention. People forget we had to maintain a deterrent and no-fly-zones indefinitely, and he was constantly shooting at us. The sanctions were collapsing and he would have been re-armed pretty fast after that.Look at it this way, if we hadn't gone to Iraq, we would have more than enough money to pay for all the F-22's we could possibly want...
The economy's troubles have little to do with that. We can easily afford these wars; they are considerably smaller in terms of GDP and lives than Korea or Vietnam, to say nothing of WW II. In fact, we actually lost more lives and spent more during peacetime in the 1980s. The economy is down due to the end of a real estate bubble in combination with an atrocious policy of promoting housing for people who can't afford it that led to massive #s of securities based on subprimes being wildly overvalued. Still, on a PPP GDP per capita basis, we still have the best major economy in the world, at least until Obama ruins it with carbon fairy tithes and universally miserable healthcare.Your economy is already down, thanks to 8 years under Bush and wars that you cant afford and that wont gain you anything.
You know, I am having real trouble reading you. Sometimes you sound like a socialist (AGW) and sometime like one of those dang libertarian fellers. Hmmph!UncleMatt wrote: NO, engaging in DEFICIT SPENDING to try to "give democracy" to those who haven't earned it in the Middle East in the most socialistic, Wilsonian way possible is NOT a good use of America's resources. That is your OPINION, and it is seriously flawed to say the least.
We really need a "Prime Directive" approach to foreign policy from now on. No matter how good our intentions are, when we interefere with the natural development and evolution of other cultures and countries, in the end we do more harm than good, and all at taxpyer expense. We need to get over ourselves and realize we DO NOT have all the anwers for the rest of the world, we DO NOT need to interfere with what goes on in other countries (either militarily, economically, or when it comes to foreign "aid"). Until we arrive at that conclusion, we will contineu to screw things up for ourselves, and for the rest of the world.
Look at it this way, if we hadn't gone to Iraq, we would have more than enough money to pay for all the F-22's we could possibly want...