THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Brent on 2 Aug 2010 11:04 On 2010-08-02, US 71 <us71(a)cox.net> wrote: > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >> >> You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of >> real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not >> discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure >> in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game >> of Risk at our expense. > But how much? As much as the next 20 countries combined? Eisenhower warned > about the defense industry taking over the country. There is also the aspect of those who seek war simply for profit. "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." -Major General Smedley D. Butler
From: Larry G on 2 Aug 2010 11:53 On Aug 2, 11:04 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-02, US 71 <u...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > >> You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of > >> real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not > >> discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure > >> in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game > >> of Risk at our expense. > > But how much? As much as the next 20 countries combined? Eisenhower warned > > about the defense industry taking over the country. > > There is also the aspect of those who seek war simply for profit. > > "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily > the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one > international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are > reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." -Major General Smedley D. > Butler I'm not going to disagree with your assessment of what war can be but how do you classify "defense" spending not for the ability to conduct wars but to defend our shores? is that a "racket" also? Even all the other industrialized countries who don't seem to go off an get involved in wars like we do seem to put aside money for "defense". Do you think that the money that Europe and Japan spend on "defense" is also a racket? Coast Guard? Homeland Security? CIA? FBI? Immigration? Airport Security? Police?
From: Dave Head on 2 Aug 2010 21:52 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:54:22 -0500, "US 71" <us71(a)cox.net> wrote: > >"Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >> >> You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of >> real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not >> discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure >> in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game >> of Risk at our expense. >> > >But how much? As much as the next 20 countries combined? Eisenhower warned >about the defense industry taking over the country. We're the world's default police. We have bases all over the world. That's expensive. Don't want to do it? Fine, vacate everywhere. SOMEBODY ELSE will do it, tho, as it is a job needing done. It'd probably be the Chinese. Izzat what you want? >
From: Brent on 2 Aug 2010 22:32 On 2010-08-03, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:54:22 -0500, "US 71" <us71(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> >>"Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> >>> >>> You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of >>> real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not >>> discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure >>> in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game >>> of Risk at our expense. >>> >> >>But how much? As much as the next 20 countries combined? Eisenhower warned >>about the defense industry taking over the country. > > We're the world's default police. We have bases all over the world. > That's expensive. Don't want to do it? Fine, vacate everywhere. > SOMEBODY ELSE will do it, tho, as it is a job needing done. It'd > probably be the Chinese. Izzat what you want? The chinese aren't that stupid. Neither their leaders or the people they rule over. Americans however are so stupid they believe that paying the bills in blood and treasure for a bunch of insiders, control freaks, and bored wealthy people who need to play a game of risk on the globe is in their best interest.
From: Dave Head on 2 Aug 2010 22:45
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 02:32:44 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-08-03, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:54:22 -0500, "US 71" <us71(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>> >>>> >>>> You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of >>>> real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not >>>> discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure >>>> in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game >>>> of Risk at our expense. >>>> >>> >>>But how much? As much as the next 20 countries combined? Eisenhower warned >>>about the defense industry taking over the country. >> >> We're the world's default police. We have bases all over the world. >> That's expensive. Don't want to do it? Fine, vacate everywhere. >> SOMEBODY ELSE will do it, tho, as it is a job needing done. It'd >> probably be the Chinese. Izzat what you want? > >The chinese aren't that stupid. Neither their leaders or the people they >rule over. There's nothing stupid about positioning yourself to dominate the world. That's what they'd do. What we're doing is preventing what they'd be doing. We quit that field, and they'd do it. >Americans however are so stupid they believe that paying the bills in >blood and treasure for a bunch of insiders, control freaks, and bored >wealthy people who need to play a game of risk on the globe is in their >best interest. You're really "out there." How many anti-war protesters do you see? Cindy Sheehan, and who else? See, nobody cares - most agree with it. Might as well save your breath. |