THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 6 Jul 2010 09:23 On Jul 6, 9:04 am, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/6/2010 4:58 AM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 11:28 pm, Rich Piehl > > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >> On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote: > > >>> On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 7/5/2010 1:51 PM, Brent wrote: > > >>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For > >>>>>>>> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs. > > >>>>>>> The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is > >>>>>>> government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private > >>>>>>> sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at > >>>>>>> work. > > >>>>>> But that's the different discussion I mentioned. It has nothing to do > >>>>>> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green > >>>>>> jobs created. > > >>>>> Government consumption of our wealth. > > >>>>>>> Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green' > >>>>>>> spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it > >>>>>>> destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth > >>>>>>> increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy) > > >>>>>> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which > >>>>>> isn't true. > > >>>>> If a factory is bombed into rubble wether the nation it is in attacked > >>>>> someone else or was attacked is irrelevant. The factory and its > >>>>> productive capacity has been destroyed. > > >>>>>> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military > >>>>>> spending. none. > > >>>>> Nice strawman. I stated nothing about what I want. It's a simple fact > >>>>> that military spending an economic drain on a society. > > >>>> As opposed to the economic drain on our society that occurred after > >>>> 9/11, and would occur again if we got another 9/11 type attack? Ar > >>>> numerous 9/11 type attacks? > > >>> except the military cannot stop 9/11 type attacks to start with if the > >>> enemy is mobile and not state-sponsored. > > >>> It's a new kind of guerrilla warfare and we're fighting like the Brits > >>> did in the Revolutionary War - trying to go around the world nation- > >>> building failed states in a futile effort to turn them into Al Quieda- > >>> hating American-style Democracies. > > >>> We are so stupid about this it would be laughable if it were not for > >>> the fact that we hypocritically deficit-fund the war and our young > >>> people are literally turned into cannon (IED) fodder. > > >>> We wen through this very same stupidness in Vietnam and all we are > >>> doing now is a thinly-veiled effort to install puppet govts in a part > >>> of the world where that strategy has only earned us more and more > >>> hostility. > > >>> The way to beat Al Queida is NOT with the military.... it's dumb. > > >> Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda > >> infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their > >> command and control structure - yes. > > >> I don't consider that stupid. > > > Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country > > the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years > > and has a literacy rate of 24%. > > Cite the CIA fact please. > > > > > You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. > > Disrupt their > >> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go. > > > We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All > > we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon > > fodder. > > So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use > the whole population for cannon fodder? > > Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda > wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get > us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office > and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute > metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident? Rich - did you read what I said:? " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. ....................................... go after them wherever they go. > I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED cannon fodder. The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida... they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad .. This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it has accomplished. "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show them how to run a country". If you support this - then admit it - okay? I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing - support it. Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with our military on flimsy pretexts....
From: Rich Piehl on 6 Jul 2010 09:48 On 7/6/2010 8:23 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 6, 9:04 am, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > wrote: >> On 7/6/2010 4:58 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 5, 11:28 pm, Rich Piehl >>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/5/2010 1:51 PM, Brent wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For >>>>>>>>>> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs. >> >>>>>>>>> The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is >>>>>>>>> government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private >>>>>>>>> sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at >>>>>>>>> work. >> >>>>>>>> But that's the different discussion I mentioned. It has nothing to do >>>>>>>> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green >>>>>>>> jobs created. >> >>>>>>> Government consumption of our wealth. >> >>>>>>>>> Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green' >>>>>>>>> spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it >>>>>>>>> destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth >>>>>>>>> increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy) >> >>>>>>>> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which >>>>>>>> isn't true. >> >>>>>>> If a factory is bombed into rubble wether the nation it is in attacked >>>>>>> someone else or was attacked is irrelevant. The factory and its >>>>>>> productive capacity has been destroyed. >> >>>>>>>> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military >>>>>>>> spending. none. >> >>>>>>> Nice strawman. I stated nothing about what I want. It's a simple fact >>>>>>> that military spending an economic drain on a society. >> >>>>>> As opposed to the economic drain on our society that occurred after >>>>>> 9/11, and would occur again if we got another 9/11 type attack? Ar >>>>>> numerous 9/11 type attacks? >> >>>>> except the military cannot stop 9/11 type attacks to start with if the >>>>> enemy is mobile and not state-sponsored. >> >>>>> It's a new kind of guerrilla warfare and we're fighting like the Brits >>>>> did in the Revolutionary War - trying to go around the world nation- >>>>> building failed states in a futile effort to turn them into Al Quieda- >>>>> hating American-style Democracies. >> >>>>> We are so stupid about this it would be laughable if it were not for >>>>> the fact that we hypocritically deficit-fund the war and our young >>>>> people are literally turned into cannon (IED) fodder. >> >>>>> We wen through this very same stupidness in Vietnam and all we are >>>>> doing now is a thinly-veiled effort to install puppet govts in a part >>>>> of the world where that strategy has only earned us more and more >>>>> hostility. >> >>>>> The way to beat Al Queida is NOT with the military.... it's dumb. >> >>>> Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda >>>> infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their >>>> command and control structure - yes. >> >>>> I don't consider that stupid. >> >>> Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country >>> the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years >>> and has a literacy rate of 24%. >> >> Cite the CIA fact please. >> >> >> >>> You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. >>> Disrupt their >>>> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go. >> >>> We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All >>> we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon >>> fodder. >> >> So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use >> the whole population for cannon fodder? >> >> Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda >> wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get >> us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office >> and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute >> metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident? > > Rich - did you read what I said:? > > " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. > ...................................... go after them wherever they go. >> > I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that > drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED > cannon fodder. > > The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida... > they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the > middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad .. > > This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet > regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it > has accomplished. > > "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show > them how to run a country". > > If you support this - then admit it - okay? > > I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing - > support it. > > Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with > our military on flimsy pretexts.... Do you think the government of Afghanistan prior to 2002 was separate from AlQaeda? Do you think the Taliban weren't in control of the country? Do you not think the Taliban weren't harboring AlQaeda? And after we eliminate Al Qaeda and the governments that protect them we have to make sure there isn't a power vacuum when we leave. Otherwise you end up with what happened in Cambodia and Somalia (remember Mogadishu?) and several others. And we would be absolute IDIOTS to go through all the time, treasure and blood only to have a government installed that is just going to restore the same structure that was there before the whole thing started. I don't call that nation building. I call that protecting ourselves.
From: Rich Piehl on 6 Jul 2010 10:01 On 7/6/2010 8:23 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >>> Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country >>> the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years >>> and has a literacy rate of 24%. >> >> Cite the CIA fact please. >> \ BTW, where's the cite for this? >> >> >>> You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. >>> Disrupt their >>>> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go. >> >>> We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All >>> we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon >>> fodder. >> >> So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use >> the whole population for cannon fodder? >> >> Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda >> wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get >> us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office >> and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute >> metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident? > > Rich - did you read what I said:? > Which leaders? Taliban who protected AlQaeda? And who do they get replaced with? It's easy to say something like >> " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. >> ...................................... go after them wherever they go. but there's a whole series of things tied to that you can't just dismiss. >> > I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that > drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED > cannon fodder. > > The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida... > they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the > middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad .. > > This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet > regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it > has accomplished. > > "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show > them how to run a country". > > If you support this - then admit it - okay? > > I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing - > support it. > > Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with > our military on flimsy pretexts.... Which country have we "taken over" on a long term basis (several decades). Name one.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 6 Jul 2010 10:33 On 7/5/2010 10:57 PM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 5, 9:53 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none >>> of these countries went broke: >> >>> Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48 >>> Norway Oslo $6.27 >>> Italy Milan $5.96 >>> Denmark Copenhagen $5.93 >>> Belgium Brussels $5.91 >>> Sweden Stockholm $5.80 >>> United Kingdom London $5.79 >>> Germany Frankfurt $5.57 >>> France Paris $5.54 >>> Portugal Lisbon $5.35 >>> Hungary Budapest $4.94 >> >> I don't think you would like the standard of living in many of those >> countries. A standard of living that is what it is thanks to a very high >> tax rate. The standard of living based on material goods, home size, etc >> is probably about equal or below to that of the USA's 'poor'. > > well.. everyone in those countries has health care. Animals get Veterinary care too, that doesn't mean it's Quality care. When you lower the requirements or select Medical Students for their color rather than their non subjective test... you lower quality. When you limit the cost artificially, you limit quality. When you add government bureaucracy you limit quality.
From: Larry G on 6 Jul 2010 19:23
On Jul 6, 9:48 am, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/6/2010 8:23 AM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 9:04 am, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > > wrote: > >> On 7/6/2010 4:58 AM, Larry G wrote: > > >>> On Jul 5, 11:28 pm, Rich Piehl > >>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >>>> On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/5/2010 1:51 PM, Brent wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For > >>>>>>>>>> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs. > > >>>>>>>>> The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is > >>>>>>>>> government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private > >>>>>>>>> sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at > >>>>>>>>> work. > > >>>>>>>> But that's the different discussion I mentioned. It has nothing to do > >>>>>>>> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green > >>>>>>>> jobs created. > > >>>>>>> Government consumption of our wealth. > > >>>>>>>>> Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green' > >>>>>>>>> spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it > >>>>>>>>> destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth > >>>>>>>>> increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy) > > >>>>>>>> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which > >>>>>>>> isn't true. > > >>>>>>> If a factory is bombed into rubble wether the nation it is in attacked > >>>>>>> someone else or was attacked is irrelevant. The factory and its > >>>>>>> productive capacity has been destroyed. > > >>>>>>>> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military > >>>>>>>> spending. none. > > >>>>>>> Nice strawman. I stated nothing about what I want. It's a simple fact > >>>>>>> that military spending an economic drain on a society. > > >>>>>> As opposed to the economic drain on our society that occurred after > >>>>>> 9/11, and would occur again if we got another 9/11 type attack? Ar > >>>>>> numerous 9/11 type attacks? > > >>>>> except the military cannot stop 9/11 type attacks to start with if the > >>>>> enemy is mobile and not state-sponsored. > > >>>>> It's a new kind of guerrilla warfare and we're fighting like the Brits > >>>>> did in the Revolutionary War - trying to go around the world nation- > >>>>> building failed states in a futile effort to turn them into Al Quieda- > >>>>> hating American-style Democracies. > > >>>>> We are so stupid about this it would be laughable if it were not for > >>>>> the fact that we hypocritically deficit-fund the war and our young > >>>>> people are literally turned into cannon (IED) fodder. > > >>>>> We wen through this very same stupidness in Vietnam and all we are > >>>>> doing now is a thinly-veiled effort to install puppet govts in a part > >>>>> of the world where that strategy has only earned us more and more > >>>>> hostility. > > >>>>> The way to beat Al Queida is NOT with the military.... it's dumb. > > >>>> Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda > >>>> infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their > >>>> command and control structure - yes. > > >>>> I don't consider that stupid. > > >>> Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country > >>> the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years > >>> and has a literacy rate of 24%. > > >> Cite the CIA fact please. > > >>> You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. > >>> Disrupt their > >>>> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go. > > >>> We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All > >>> we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon > >>> fodder. > > >> So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use > >> the whole population for cannon fodder? > > >> Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda > >> wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get > >> us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office > >> and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute > >> metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident? > > > Rich - did you read what I said:? > > > " Capture or kill the leaders - yes. > > ...................................... go after them wherever they go. > > > I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that > > drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED > > cannon fodder. > > > The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida... > > they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the > > middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad .. > > > This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet > > regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it > > has accomplished. > > > "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show > > them how to run a country". > > > If you support this - then admit it - okay? > > > I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing - > > support it. > > > Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with > > our military on flimsy pretexts.... > > Do you think the government of Afghanistan prior to 2002 was separate > from AlQaeda? Do you think the Taliban weren't in control of the > country? Do you not think the Taliban weren't harboring AlQaeda? > > And after we eliminate Al Qaeda and the governments that protect them we > have to make sure there isn't a power vacuum when we leave. Otherwise > you end up with what happened in Cambodia and Somalia (remember > Mogadishu?) and several others. And we would be absolute IDIOTS to go > through all the time, treasure and blood only to have a government > installed that is just going to restore the same structure that was > there before the whole thing started. I don't call that nation > building. I call that protecting ourselves. Jeeze Rich. there are power vacuums in a dozen or more countries including Somalia, Yemen and solid anti-American rulers in others that would harbor and support anti-American insurgents. You won't fix this by "winning" in Afghanistan guy. You cannot create a central govt in a country that has not had one in hundreds of years and 80% who cannot read or write. What do you want to do - go take over countries like that so we can keep out anti-American insurgents? Are you going to do that for every failed state that exists ? Where does it end? You are all over Obama for the deficit. Well guy. THIS IS THE DEFICIT not only in money we do not have and cannot afford but young people's lives that are being wasted on a bad strategy that is about a whole lot more than 100 Al Queida folks. This is American Imperialism guy... this is what it looks like and this is why much of the world thinks we are a bunch of cowboys and jerks. If we really were ....actually.. "protecting ourselves" - you'd have a leg to stand on but we are not... this won't protect us... Al Queida can and will come to get us from the Netherlands, Canada...Indonesia, Somalia... Yemen.. etc.. what are you going to do about protecting us from those sources of Al Queida? send in more troops? |