Imagine . . .

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I'm sure that the Germans have mixed emotions about our military presence. But our troops in Germany don't bust into homes during the dark of the night on a regular basis, kill civilians by the thousands, etc. That is not an apt comparison to the disasters in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Well our troops aren't bursting into German homes during the cover of darkness or the light of day and killing by the thousands because we aren't in the midst of WWII anymore or we would be!

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Something to consider:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ePHhnTfkxrQ

Maybe there is a reason they hate us?

That is Ron Paul's voice alright. Here goes a Ron Paul commercial that was BANNED and probably hasn't been seen by many people, there's a lot of truth to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rMn...layer_embedded

This is a good video as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFZYH...layer_embedded

[IIFFOFRDB]

They should of armed themselves if they are going to decorate New York City with the bodies of our friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw3g7gT4OBo

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

THEY "know who the fuck is who,"

... so if THEY would give them up THEY could get a good night's sleep.

If you are harboring a bank robber in this country don't whine when the door gets kicked at 2 in the morning, everyone gets "rousted," and some get searched, have weapons pointed at them, and some may even take a ride "down town" for outstanding warrants or outstading attitudes.

______________________________ ______________________________ __
I am beginning to smell the stench of John Kerry in this thread. I hope it disperses.

Assuming the accuracy of your premise, why would they give anybody up? first, we're the one who invaded their country for no fucking reason. Why would they be on our side? Second, if they did give someone up, they would be targeted by the allies of those they betrayed. We won't be able to protect them. We 1) don't have enough troops there to do that; and 2) are going home in two more months in any event. The people will be there for the rest of their life.

[TexTushHog]

And IB, the anti-coalition forces and the suicide bombers wouldn't be there if we weren't there. We're the ones who started this war of choice based on false, cooked intelligence.

And the violence will likely get worse when we leave. We.ve just waltzed in, and wrecked a stable, albeit despotic country. And one that was an effective counterweight to Iran. Now that we've broken all the china and open Pandora's box, we're picking up our toys and going home. Heck of a job!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

... the anti-coalition forces and the suicide bombers wouldn't be there if we weren't there.

And they wouldn't be here, if we weren't here.

So, I would prefer that we be "over there."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

We.ve just waltzed in, and wrecked a stable, albeit despotic country. And one that was an effective counterweight to Iran.

What are you talking about? Or are you talking to yourself?

Too bad you weren't around to say that about Germany in 1940 regarding Russia.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And IB, the anti-coalition forces and the suicide bombers wouldn't be there if we weren't there. We're the ones who started this war of choice based on false, cooked intelligence.

And the violence will likely get worse when we leave. We.ve just waltzed in, and wrecked a stable, albeit despotic country. And one that was an effective counterweight to Iran. Now that we've broken all the china and open Pandora's box, we're picking up our toys and going home. Heck of a job!!

Nevertheless, 42,000 Iraqis per year were "disappearing" or dying under Saddam; now the figure is closer to 11,000 per year. Not an ideal situation, but better.

The U.S. wants to stay and assist. Many Iraqis want the U.S. to stay and assist. But Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. No doubt the Iraqis will realize their leaders erred when the U.S. is really gone.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The U.S. wants to stay and assist. Many Iraqis want the U.S. to stay and assist. But Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. No doubt the Iraqis will realize their leaders erred when the U.S. is really gone.

Should we spend all our resources 'fixing' the world?

If we do not receive equal or more economic benefits than we expend, then the Empire will crumble.

This is a simple math problem.

Originally Posted by anaximander

God will deal handily with the godless.
In that I am certain.

No doubt a Rick Perry supporter!

Hey dickhead, why didn't God make a better world? One where there were no Godless folks!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Should we spend all our resources 'fixing' the world?If we do not receive equal or more economic benefits than we expend, then the Empire will crumble. This is a simple math problem.

Out of your tax dollars generously $.005 annually goest to "fixing the world" by this country. As a consequence your annual expenditure is generously $.06 or $.72 annually (generously).

"This is a simple math problem."

If I paid you $1.00 a year that would be about a 39% return over the cost of your generous expenditure. Not bad in today's investment atmosphere. My return would be not having to hear you continue to whine about expending "all our recources" any more on "fixing the world." Certainly worth more than a dollar a year, but all that whining must drain you from all the negative atmosphere generated around you, so there is a personal benefit to you if you ceased to continue whining.

You can PM me as to the address to send the dollar.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Should we spend all our resources 'fixing' the world?

If we do not receive equal or more economic benefits than we expend, then the Empire will crumble.

This is a simple math problem.

Do you fix the knocking in your engine before or after you throw a rod? Which is more expensive? Is exercise and proper diet cheaper or more expensive than a triple by-pass resulting from a sedentary life style and fatty food? Which was more expensive WWII or the Marshall Plan -- a "Marshall Plan" after WWI might have saved the world a great deal of pain?

Preventive maintenance is almost always cheaper than the neglectful "que sera, sera" you advocate. Do the math, it's really quite simple.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Preventive maintenance is almost always cheaper than the neglectful "que sera, sera" you advocate. Do the math, it's really quite simple.

Sounds like you are for the universial health care.

I am for allocating resources that we have, not what we wish we had.

We have to make cuts in three programs. Defense, SS, MC. They make up the bulk of our spending.

You do realize that we did not have to go to war with Germany, in fact , it seems that we should have went to war with Russia with how we acted during the Cold War.

Ike was right, it is not the the straw man we should watch but the vast military industrial complex who constructed him.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Out of your tax dollars generously $.005 annually goest to "fixing the world" by this country. As a consequence your annual expenditure is generously $.06 or $.72 annually (generously).

"This is a simple math problem."

.

I guess you do not count the overall cost to maintain that 'fixing the world' cost.

By your way of thinking you only figure out how much it cost to educate a student by figuring out how much the teacher(s) salary is and not all the other costs associated with that teachers salary. Like school buildings, admin cost, retirement benifits, interest cost from borrowing to pay for the bond payments....

You get the picture. Realpolitik. Not you sound bytes.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

I guess you do not count the overall cost to maintain that 'fixing the world' cost.

Oh, ok, it takes one penny a year out of your taxes for foreign nation building. So, I'll give you a 100% "return" on your money .... and pay you a quarter (12 x 2 cents + 1 cent of interest), if you'll quit whining.

FYI: "The Boss" in Afghanistan says we're going to be there for a while.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20115051.shtml

Get used to it.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Oh, ok, it takes one penny a year out of your taxes for foreign nation building. So, I'll give you a 100% "return" on your money .... and pay you a quarter (12 x 2 cents + 1 cent of interest), if you'll quit whining.

FYI: "The Boss" in Afghanistan says we're going to be there for a while.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20115051.shtml

Get used to it.

I thought Afghanistan was the good war..the one worth fighting?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Oh, ok, it takes one penny a year out of your taxes for foreign nation building. So, I'll give you a 100% "return" on your money .... and pay you a quarter (12 x 2 cents + 1 cent of interest), if you'll quit whining.

I'll take a 1% rebate from you on the taxes I've paid since we invaded Iraq. Are you seriously offering that? If so, get your check book and make sure that you've got plenty in the bank.

And last I heard, the defense budget was far more than 1% of Federal spending.