|
Post by ltfred on Jun 11, 2009 17:41:34 GMT -5
Well Iran. Venezuela, Bolivia, North Korea. They're pretty shit scared. Iraq, too. Saudi Arabia. Pretty much everywhere in the middle East actually. In other words, nations that need to be scared we'll take them off the map. Based on what? Based on Iran trying to get a deterrent to the IDF, and the US who have repeatedly threatened Iran with extermination with their illegal nuclear weapons. Oh, and Iran isn't trying to get nuclear weapons, according to the CIA, last I checked. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran isn't trying to get them, but if it was I'd understand. It's freindless and alone against two extremely powerful nuclear armed beligerents. The only deterrent against a nuclear power is a nuclear weapon. BTW, just a tangent. Can you explain something for me, Sky? In 2003, when Bush was lying about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction, there seems to be an inconsistency. If Iraq can nuke London in 45 minutes and kill everyone, far from being a reason to invade, doesn't that mean you can't invade? Aren't nuclear weapons kept in case of armed attack by another power? Interestingly, the whole world opposed Israel getting nuclear weapons, too. Didn't stop you. Hugo Chavez has been elected several times. His economy is doing remarkably well, the best by far in the region. Far better than Columbia, for instance, the US's ally in the area. And there's never been a suggestion that the Venezuelan army could pull off an attack on anywhere, let alone that he had any inclination of doing so. He remains the most popular leader, on the continent. Only if you misquote them. Their actual policy is full normalisation of relations, so long as Israel withdraws it's (illegal) settlements from Palestine, and stops bombing the shit out of everyone around it. It's called the Arab Peace Initiative. Look it up. Obama's policy towards Israel is that they should obey international law, or it at least seems to be. I certainly hope that that's his policy. Like a drug abuser, Israel has been harming others and itself for far too long. There is no actual argument here. Here's a clue, instead of simply stating what is, start a sentence with 'because' and then describe why it should be so. Your implied argument is that spending lots of money helps Germany. Note that this spending provides nothing to the United States, since the bases have no millitary use and protect against no threat. If you want to help Germany's economy (and Lord knows why you'd want to, since they're like number 4th biggest in the world), just send them aid money. When the Soviet Union withdrew, did you think that they should simply leave the country to the 'Taliban fighters'? Or did you think that they should have stayed for an indefinate period of time, killing tens of thousands of innocents, and then withdraw, leaving the country to the Taliban fighters? Shiiteloads of people have used ultimatums. The Soviet Union might have served an ultimatum on Afghanistan in 1979- if there are any bombs or missiles that hit Russia between now and ___, we invade. Cowboy diplomacy isn't. Neither is Cowboy law. Just because you tell sombody to do something does make it legal; you need either a UN Security Council resolution or to fullfil the definition of self-defence.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 20:32:36 GMT -5
Fred how can you claim that Iran or those other countries are scared but then turn around and give examples of them not doing what we and the rest of the world ask?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 11, 2009 20:43:39 GMT -5
Fred how can you claim that Iran or those other countries are scared but then turn around and give examples of them not doing what we and the rest of the world ask? What about the people of those countries?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 20:50:30 GMT -5
What, is the US purposely scaring the people of those counties? For what reason?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 11, 2009 23:11:58 GMT -5
What, is the US purposely scaring the people of those counties? For what reason? Not deliberately (I presume). They probably are trying to scare various leaders into submission, but I don't know about that.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 12, 2009 0:06:14 GMT -5
Which one, in a sound time period, will we pick a fight with again? I thought we either didn't give a care, were allied to, or owe these countries to the point war or even skirmishes with are not going to happen. I'll give you Russia, but there's only so much that plane they have will do against ground defense and an airborn threat Situations change. It was not that long ago that we were helping the Afghans defeat the Russians. While I doubt any of those countries would attack us directly, they may attack one of our allies, or openly attack on of their neighbors. While we should not be the world police force, we still need to support the UN if action is taken. Air superiority is key to modern combat. Yes, we were allied with the Afghans, and still are. It wasn't them that we were against, it was a fringe dictoral party that fought after the Russian crap to take over the government. I understand the whole "We need better stuff than them" mindset, but to bankrupt a nation for it for something that most likely could be done with anything we currently have is pretty pointless, esspecially for hypothetical situations and 'could happens'
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Jun 12, 2009 6:43:35 GMT -5
Also, $800bn works out at roughly £512bn. Pre-recession, the UK government spent around £550bn - and that's on everything. Well, no offece, the UK is a bit smaller than the US Well yes - accounting for larger taxes, it's about a quarter the size - but the UK still isn't that small a country, or that underdeveloped either (despite appearances). My point, which wasn't terribly coherent, was this: spending the equivalent of an entire G8 government budget on military alone is pure insanity, especially when the enemy being fought against typically operates on 270 dinars and a bent, rusty spoon. I'm just not seeing how Sky can't see this.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 12, 2009 6:59:53 GMT -5
Yes, we were allied with the Afghans, and still are. It wasn't them that we were against, it was a fringe dictoral party that fought after the Russian crap to take over the government. I understand the whole "We need better stuff than them" mindset, but to bankrupt a nation for it for something that most likely could be done with anything we currently have is pretty pointless, esspecially for hypothetical situations and 'could happens' I understand that we can't bankrupt the nation to have the best military by 10 fold. I was just defending the F-22. Listen I think other projects, like the F-35 are a waste. We have planes that can fill the role that the F-35 would. We have the Stealth Fighter that can take out ground tagets while radar is still a consern. The F/A-18 is still a world class multi-role fighter. The A-10 is still the best tank busting, close air support plane in the world. Plus we are spending money on new more tanks, more landing craft......when their not going to be a huge land war. This is all stuff that is not needed. So I agree that we need to cut back on getting weapons and equipment that we don't need. I just don't think the F-22 was one of those things.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 12, 2009 8:03:25 GMT -5
Well, no offece, the UK is a bit smaller than the US Well yes - accounting for larger taxes, it's about a quarter the size - but the UK still isn't that small a country, or that underdeveloped either (despite appearances). My point, which wasn't terribly coherent, was this: spending the equivalent of an entire G8 government budget on military alone is pure insanity, especially when the enemy being fought against typically operates on 270 dinars and a bent, rusty spoon. I'm just not seeing how Sky can't see this. Well, as has been said so far, it's the slim chances in the future we run across something somehow better than we could stand a chance against. Technically aren't psychos with guns and towels doing that to us in Iraq already without the fancy shit we have?
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 12, 2009 8:07:25 GMT -5
Yes, we were allied with the Afghans, and still are. It wasn't them that we were against, it was a fringe dictoral party that fought after the Russian crap to take over the government. I understand the whole "We need better stuff than them" mindset, but to bankrupt a nation for it for something that most likely could be done with anything we currently have is pretty pointless, esspecially for hypothetical situations and 'could happens' I understand that we can't bankrupt the nation to have the best military by 10 fold. I was just defending the F-22. Listen I think other projects, like the F-35 are a waste. We have planes that can fill the role that the F-35 would. We have the Stealth Fighter that can take out ground tagets while radar is still a consern. The F/A-18 is still a world class multi-role fighter. The A-10 is still the best tank busting, close air support plane in the world. Plus we are spending money on new more tanks, more landing craft......when their not going to be a huge land war. This is all stuff that is not needed. So I agree that we need to cut back on getting weapons and equipment that we don't need. I just don't think the F-22 was one of those things. Yeah, that's basically my point too, there's a ton of stuff we don't need or need more of. That military budget can be cut down quite a bit
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jun 12, 2009 13:16:28 GMT -5
Based on what? Based on Iran trying to get a deterrent to the IDF, and the US who have repeatedly threatened Iran with extermination with their illegal nuclear weapons. Oh, and Iran isn't trying to get nuclear weapons, according to the CIA, last I checked. Iran is alone and friendless because of the past few leaders of the country have been hell-bent on picking fights with people. For example, last year an Iranian naval vessel kidnapped several British sailors who were on patrol in international waters. Saddam was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he was telling the West that he was unarmed. On the other hand, he was telling the rest of the people in the Middle East that if anyone tried to cross him he'd cut loose with his arsenal. Given that Saddam was discovered to have had ties to terrorism (the PLO, it later turned out) and had been belligerent before in regards to violating UN regulations, assuming that he was armed was actually the smart choice. No, Israel has nukes because in the 1960s the government of France felt that Israel needed to be a nuclear state for the sake of survival. France helped Israel establish the Dimona reactor knowing full well that Israel had the means to tap it for material. The reason why Chavez is popular and why the country seems to be doing so well is because Chavez turned it into a socialist nation whose social services budget was based on oil sales. When oil prices bottomed out last year, Chavez' administration began to be threatened with the possibility of his finally being thrown out. If you'd read a business magazine or two instead of assuming you knew everything about the realm of finance, you might know these things. The problem here is that the Palestinians have been regarded as "refugees" for so long by so many different groups that a significant majority has given in to the label and have begun to regard themselves as homeless; these people, whether solo or in conjunction with groups like the PLO, have been trying to fight Israel in order to take back what they regard as theirs. If these people were made to see common sense, they'd realize that the real future for the Palestinian people is in building up what they have, not in tearing down what others have. As I explained in another post, Rammstein is a major transit hub for US military operations in Europe and the Middle East and Landstuhl is home to a critical US military hospital. Also, you fail to realize that towns and communities tend to spring up around military bases. If the bases go away, so do the towns.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 12, 2009 13:33:45 GMT -5
Sky, you still mis Fred's point on Rammstein. The fact that the base has a German town around it that needs the base to survive does not help the US.
Rammstein is important now because we are involved in the middle east. As soon as we are not, its importance wanes.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Jun 12, 2009 13:39:47 GMT -5
Palestinians really can't build themselves up when Israel continues to restrict them and encroach upon their land.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 12, 2009 21:54:02 GMT -5
Palestinians really can't build themselves up when Israel continues to restrict them and encroach upon their land. blow them up.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 12, 2009 22:35:36 GMT -5
....and Israel really can't think about peace when rocket are be lobbed into their cities.
Fred, don't think one side is worse then the other as far as this goes.
|
|