363 réponses à ce sujet

[The Devlish Redhead]

Pornography, and American pop culture will be their undoing. Just you wait, and see.

 

Bomb their strongholds with printed porn from the sky...  Drown them in porn

[Jehuty]

both scalpels and hammers are both good tactics to use

Agreed, but it depends on the situation. Sometimes a surgical strike is needed while other times a good old fashioned steamroll will do nicely. 

 

It'll depend on how well the rebels fight on the ground and a few other factors to determine which is needed. Personally being the scalpel is to reduce losses on our side and inflict maximum loss on the enemy's. ISIS may be a boogyman over there, but as thE-ro stated, they are nothing compared to a well funded, well trained and well geared military. 

 

ISIS has so much ground but as long as people resist, and there are people doing just that, they cannot hope to keep control of it. 

[Jehuty]

Pornography, and pork will be their undoing. Just you wait, and see.

FTFY. 

[Fast Jimmy]

What is your source for this, exactly?

 

http://voices.washin...e_iraq_war.html

 

"According to Hormats, it is true to say that Bush is unique among U.S. presidents in failing to raise a nickel in extra taxes to pay for the cost of the Iraq war."

 

http://www.reuters.c...E92D0PG20130314

 

"The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.

 

That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update."

 

http://www.fas.org/s...sec/RL33110.pdf

 

"The FY2015 Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 124/P.L. 113-164) sets war funding at the FY2014 enacted level of $95.5 billion, which exceeds the FY2015 amended request (with OIR) by about $16.5 billion. The CR expires on December 11, 2014, and Congress is expected to enact another CR or an Omnibus appropriations act for the rest of the fiscal year."

 

For the record, for those who don't know what a Continuing Resolution is (and it sounds like from some of the truly ignorant responses here on the realities of the budget, it is definitely needed):

 

http://dictionary.re...uing resolution

 

"noun, U.S. Politics.

1.

legislation enacted by Congress to allow government operations to continue until the regular appropriations are enacted: used when action on appropriations is not completed by the beginning of a fiscal year."

 

Basically it is an automatic renewal of previously approved funding levels. But guess what? When it was first approved in 2002, the Iraq Resolution had no funding. And no steps have been taken to either raise taxes or cut benefits significantly to cover that amount. Hence, the CR for the Iraq (and also Afghanistan) war(s) has been autopilot on pure debt.

 

 

Bullcrapper's Anonymous

 

Military spending is dimes on the dollar of the deficit. If we disbanded our entire military, we'd still have a deficit. 

 

 

You are making some huge mistakes here. First of all, there is debt and there is deficit. The deficit is how much the US government goes over each year. This is usually a little over a trillion dollars... of which the $600B+ the Defense department uses (again, this is the BUDGET, not actual spending, so it completely ignored the other hundreds of billions we spend on unfunded Continuing Resolutions) is far more than "dimes on the dollar." 

 

In terms of the US National Debt, you are correct - it is currently over $18T dollars, of which $600B is a little over 3%. But the same can be said of Social Security, Medicare, or nearly all forms of other government services combined. The truth is the Defense accounts for over 20% of the budget and then also accounts for an ever-increasing amount of the debt because of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Continuing Resolutions which keep racking up expenses with zero way to pay for them. Unlike nearly every other form of legislation that hits the floor and must go through Appropriations to figure out how to pay, the War Bills went in without hesitation the first time (because it would be highly irresponsible to delay war because of lack of proper budgetary concerns) and so continue to act as if we are funding an immediate, emergency response, yet we are approaching our fourteenth year in a state of war, far past the point of immediate response mentality.

 

No other war in the history of the US has lasted this long nor was funded so little. Even recent wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq (Round 1) involved increased taxes and cuts to benefits, while these two wars have seen tax CUTS implemented instead.

[The Devlish Redhead]

http://voices.washin...e_iraq_war.html

 

"According to Hormats, it is true to say that Bush is unique among U.S. presidents in failing to raise a nickel in extra taxes to pay for the cost of the Iraq war."

 

http://www.reuters.c...E92D0PG20130314

 

"The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.

 

That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update."

 

http://www.fas.org/s...sec/RL33110.pdf

 

"The FY2015 Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 124/P.L. 113-164) sets war funding at the FY2014 enacted level of $95.5 billion, which exceeds the FY2015 amended request (with OIR) by about $16.5 billion. The CR expires on December 11, 2014, and Congress is expected to enact another CR or an Omnibus appropriations act for the rest of the fiscal year."

 

For the record, for those who don't know what a Continuing Resolution is (and it sounds like from some of the truly ignorant responses here on the realities of the budget, it is definitely needed):

 

http://dictionary.re...uing resolution

 

"noun, U.S. Politics.

1.

legislation enacted by Congress to allow government operations to continue until the regular appropriations are enacted: used when action on appropriations is not completed by the beginning of a fiscal year."

 

Basically it is an automatic renewal of previously approved funding levels. But guess what? When it was first approved in 2002, the Iraq Resolution had no funding. And no steps have been taken to either raise taxes or cut benefits significantly to cover that amount. Hence, the CR for the Iraq (and also Afghanistan) war(s) has been autopilot on pure debt.

 

 

 

 

You are making some huge mistakes here. First of all, there is debt and there is deficit. The deficit is how much the US government goes over each year. This is usually a little over a trillion dollars... of which the $600B+ the Defense department uses (again, this is the BUDGET, not actual spending, so it completely ignored the other hundreds of billions we spend on unfunded Continuing Resolutions) is far more than "dimes on the dollar." 

 

In terms of the US National Debt, you are correct - it is currently over $18T dollars, of which $600B is a little over 3%. But the same can be said of Social Security, Medicare, or nearly all forms of other government services combined. The truth is the Defense accounts for over 20% of the budget and then also accounts for an ever-increasing amount of the debt because of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Continuing Resolutions which keep racking up expenses with zero way to pay for them. Unlike nearly every other form of legislation that hits the floor and must go through Appropriations to figure out how to pay, the War Bills went in without hesitation the first time (because it would be highly irresponsible to delay war because of emergency war efforts) and so continue to act as if we are funding an immediate, emergency response, yet we are approaching our fourteenth year in a state of war, far past the point of immediate response mentality.

 

No other war in the history of the US has lasted this long nor was funded so little. Even recent wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq (Round 1) involved increased taxes and cuts to benefits, while these two wars have seen tax CUTS implemented instead.

 

 

And how much of the military spending has been hidden or off book, or black bag stuff?

[Fast Jimmy]

But the chaotic Middle East of today (and Balkan) cannot, of course, be the result of several centuries of corrupt mismanagement by the Ottomans? And the internal breakdown cannot have anything to do with revolts and reactions to a couple of genocides and massacres? Armenians, Bulgarians and Arabs, of course not? No, no, it would be such an enlightened, advanced and prosperous paradise today? If not for stupid, evil West?  - Now why the H*** would it be that!? Seriously, there's not a shred of reason for such a development.

 

I'm confused... do you honestly think it was EASIER keeping people from picking up a sword and murdering their neighbor because they prayed to a different invisible man than you back in the 16th or 17th century? The Ottoman empire was corrupt and inefficient, but it held together a nation of different religions and ethnicities without people resorting to butchering each other in the streets.

 

What do Arab and Balkan countries share BESIDES being formerly Ottoman imperial states? Could it be that they were split up by European powers who had no cares in the world about who was lumped together or who governed who? When nations and empires fall apart, people rally together to take control of the pieces in a messy, but ultimately unifying affair. People usually join into new nations from the rubble with people they actually (sort of) like. In the case of Europe smashing the Ottoman Empire, it worked almost exactly like Africa and its nation borders being drawn by European colonial powers (and with nearly the same results) - people who hate each other are forced to work together or share government. People lose their sense of nationality and instead cling tighter to religious and ethnic groups, igniting hatred of others and leading unrest, revolt and war.

 

 

 

 

And once again, the Ottoman Empire chose to enter WWI, by their own initiative, without cause and after a lengthy hesitation about which side seemed to be winning. Arch enemy Russia on the other side, and the fact that they somehow (despite that "the West had never done anything to help the Ottomans") owed France $430 million and Britain $107 million, and this dept would disappear if Germany won and The Ottomans were on their side, seem to have tipped the scale.

Yes it does. A government is not responsible for their enemy's glorious prosperity. They're first of all responsible for their own people's security and prosperity.

 

And you're guilty of hyperbole, "crush your enemies beyond the chance of recovering", "salting of the fields".

 

 

 

Was that NOT the goal? Break down the attacking nation so that they could never make war again? The problem is that the ability to wield military might all too often coincides with actual economic success and development.

 

 

 

Germany was considered - with some right, they did rush to invade France, they did shell civilian villages, pillage, murder and burn, as "revenge" for military losses, they did introduce gas warfare, they did bomb civilian cities with Zeppelins, they did sink passenger liners, - to have been the instigator of all the violence. There was a very understandable desire to both have compensation for the damages, and to block Germany from doing it again. It's all very reasonable and common sense. And it was how it was done. Or much, much worse. By everybody.

Why should France, exhausted and damaged, pay for Germany's recover? And does Germany not have any responsibility for all the damage? For all the millions of unexploded shells in French fields? For all the dead and injured? Just because they lost?

 

There are ways to do that without saddling a country with so much debt its children's children's children would never have a chance to put a dent in it. Starting with making sure there was some money set aside to assist Germany in rebuilding, so it would have the chance to pay back to billions it now owes to the rest of the world.

 

 

 

It's how it was done after WW2, that provides the background against how we judge the WWI aftermath. But what you call "the smart thing", "compassion" and "common sense", was actually unique, completely new and extremely expensive. And France and Britain did not receive any help on any similar scale. Which is why Germany and Japan, despite losing the war, quickly eclipsed them after. Fair? It would have been an extremely generous act, had it not been for that it was necessary, for humanitarian reasons, the destruction so complete.

 

And this is the first time in history, that a victor - without intentions of conquering and assimilating - has massively helped a vanquished foe. And it is your hated West, with Western values and ethics, that does this. At incredible expense. And all you have to say about it, is that the West is "barbaric" for not always having done it that way before?

 

Yes. 

 

I'll note that the US, both following WW1 as well as WW2, preached a very similar edict - you can't crush a country under your boot economically for losing. Because there was little precedence for it. You say "it never happened before," but the majority of the history of warfare involved conquering a country or repelling an invader. The instances where a country was beaten, but not taken over by the defending forces, yet then forced to enter into agreements involving returned payments, was not the norm. When you seize territory, you want it to be beneficial to you, not subjugate it into poverty. And if you repel forces, your military might is shown and you gain advantage in the region, but you don't then dictate a payment plan as the Vikings hop back in their boats or Napoleon begins his long march back through Russia. 

 

The concept of paying reparations was fairly undeveloped as a tactic and, it turns out, rooted in revenge rather than smart governing. 

[bEVEsthda]

I'll note that the US, both following WW1 as well as WW2, preached a very similar edict - you can't crush a country under your boot economically for losing. Because there was little precedence for it. You say "it never happened before," but the majority of the history of warfare involved conquering a country or repelling an invader. The instances where a country was beaten, but not taken over by the defending forces, yet then forced to enter into agreements involving returned payments, was not the norm. When you seize territory, you want it to be beneficial to you, not subjugate it into poverty. And if you repel forces, your military might is shown and you gain advantage in the region, but you don't then dictate a payment plan as the Vikings hop back in their boats or Napoleon begins his long march back through Russia. 

 

The concept of paying reparations was fairly undeveloped as a tactic and, it turns out, rooted in revenge rather than smart governing. 

 

I really don't know what's your point, but there's quite a few examples, for the case of an enemy having been thoroughly defeated after hard fighting.

Let's see... castrate all the boys, make sex slaves of all girls and beautiful women, flay as many of the men as you can muster energy for, behead the rest to just be done with it, burn down the city and burn the old women in the houses.

And where do you think the expression "salt the fields" comes from? From the WWI armistice? 

 

The 'benign' treatment of a conquered people, was only if they surrendered rather quickly. But even then, the aftermath was still mostly a story of brutal pillage.

 

* * *

 

In Europe's many wars, the common practice was always that the loser had to 'pay' in the peace treaty. Often also by conceding lands. A sound and sensible practice that helped reduce the number of wars, and often motivated early resolutions (cheaper). Nobody believed you could get rich and prosperous by losing a war.

[Fast Jimmy]

I really don't know what's your point, but there's quite a few examples, for the case of an enemy having been thoroughly defeated after hard fighting.
Let's see... castrate all the boys, make sex slaves of all girls and beautiful women, flay as many of the men as you can muster energy for, behead the rest to just be done with it, burn down the city and burn the old women in the houses.
And where do you think the expression "salt the fields" comes from? From the WWI armistice?

The 'benign' treatment of a conquered people, was only if they surrendered rather quickly. But even then, the aftermath was still mostly a story of brutal pillage.

All atrocities, but all things healed within a generation. And very few of which would affect the economy of the entire nation, or to put the majority of the country's GDP to be paid back in debt for almost a century.

In Europe's many wars, the common practice was always that the loser had to 'pay' in the peace treaty. Often also by conceding lands. A sound and sensible practice that helped reduce the number of wars, and often motivated early resolutions (cheaper). Nobody believed you could get rich and prosperous by losing a war.

Yes, the loser would pay... pay what they could, pay until they were broke, pay until they called every favor in imaginable. But rarely (to near the point of never) were they saddled with debt payments with interest that lasted for decades and decades (mostly due to the point of most societies throughout history having a very dismal view on the practices of debt and ursury until the 18th or 19th century). THAT'S the culprit here - malicious economic practices, a gentlemen's way of burning cities, killing boys or castrating men. And ultimately, even more destructive (and cyclical in leading to war).



Back to the original topic and the entire source of the side bar, the Middle East is the shirt show it is today because how the region was handled in the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and nearly every conflict and interaction with the region since. I'm not saying rule under the Ottoman's would have continued into today, or that it would be sunshine and rainbows, but the region devolved about five centuries when that happened and hasn't recovered ever since. In such an environment, you follow the person or people who can guarantee the most stability. And right now, it isn't a government and army most people there view as a puppet of the West, but rather a bunch of thugs and religious mobsters who thumb their noses at the West and have the forces to kill people in the street.

With a gun to your head, you swear loyalty to those people over a government that is unable to stand itself up on its own two feet to meet the basic needs of its own country.

[Bison]

Well, personally, I'd deal with ISIS by laughing at them. 

 

Stupid fucks are blowing themselves up and ****. they have to use chickens now. Gotta say, I think we should just leave them alone and let them blow themselves the **** up. The cunts. 

[Draining Dragon]

http://voices.washin...e_iraq_war.html
 
"According to Hormats, it is true to say that Bush is unique among U.S. presidents in failing to raise a nickel in extra taxes to pay for the cost of the Iraq war."

Interesting, and not very surprising.
 

http://www.reuters.c...E92D0PG20130314
 
"The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
 
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update."

That quote you gave says the total cost was $4 trillion. The study also mentions that the cost could eventually grow to $8 trillion. However, that money isn't yet on our debt, so it cannot yet be counted. That said, didn't you claim that war raised our debt from $4.6 trillion to 14 trillion, and that we were currently in a tailspin because of war? You still haven't proven that the bulk of our current debt has been caused by war.
 
 

http://www.fas.org/s...sec/RL33110.pdf
 
"The FY2015 Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 124/P.L. 113-164) sets war funding at the FY2014 enacted level of $95.5 billion, which exceeds the FY2015 amended request (with OIR) by about $16.5 billion. The CR expires on December 11, 2014, and Congress is expected to enact another CR or an Omnibus appropriations act for the rest of the fiscal year."

That isn't a lot. I don't see the problem here.
 

No other war in the history of the US has lasted this long nor was funded so little. Even recent wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq (Round 1) involved increased taxes and cuts to benefits, while these two wars have seen tax CUTS implemented instead.

Perhaps, but as your first source indicates, the Iraq war is also one of the cheapest in terms of GDP.

The real source of the debt tailspin has been the government meddling in the economy, with ridiculous, wasteful stunts like the stimulus package.

[Fast Jimmy]

The real source of the debt tailspin has been the government meddling in the economy, with ridiculous, wasteful stunts like the stimulus package.

Not true.

https://en.m.wikiped...ent_Act_of_2009

The stimulus package, while extremely expensive, "only" cost around $800 billion. A one time action, as opposed to the annual Continuing Resolution of nearly a hundred billion dollars annually every year since 2002 (just for the Iraq War mind you, NOT including Afghanistan and NOT including normal DOD budgeted spending and NOT including Discretionary Spending, which accounts for many rebuilding efforts in these invaded countries, as well as sometimes paying for security forces like Blackwater).

The stimulus package is a blip on the radar to our national debt. The deceiving amount of money being funneled into war and the "rebuilding" effort is what is bleeding this country dry... along with rapidly rising healthcare costs (which are actually, for the first time in decades, beginning to slow down).

[Draining Dragon]

Not true.

https://en.m.wikiped...ent_Act_of_2009

The stimulus package, while extremely expensive, "only" cost around $800 billion. A one time action, as opposed to the annual Continuing Resolution of nearly a hundred billion dollars annually every year since 2002 (just for the Iraq War mind you, NOT including Afghanistan and NOT including normal DOD budgeted spending and NOT including Discretionary Spending, which accounts for many rebuilding efforts in these invaded countries, as well as sometimes paying for security forces like Blackwater).

The stimulus package is a blip on the radar to our national debt. The deceiving amount of money being funneled into war and the "rebuilding" effort is what is bleeding this country dry... along with rapidly rising healthcare costs (which are actually, for the first time in decades, beginning to slow down).

I didn't say the stimulus package alone. That was just an example.

By the way, 100 billion * 13 years = 1.3 trillion. That still pales alongside the other factors influencing our debt.

To clarify, I'm not saying military spending hasn't contributed to our debt, but the current "tailspin" is distinct from that.

[Fast Jimmy]

I didn't say the stimulus package alone. That was just an example.

By the way, 100 billion * 13 years = 1.3 trillion. That still pales alongside the other factors influencing our debt.

To clarify, I'm not saying military spending hasn't contributed to our debt, but the current "tailspin" is distinct from that.

But again, the $1.3 billion is just for the Iraq War. And doesn't account further for the 20% of the national budget the DOD uses every year on the budget (the budget always over what we can afford to pay anyway, since we haven't passed a Balanced Budget since 1998) nor does it account for the Afghanistan Continuing Resolution, which is a "bargain" at $90 billion a year, over 14 years (October 2014). And none of this includes present interest that has accumated on these debts over the past decade+.

If we hadn't been fighting a two-front war for over a score, the national debt would not be this out of control. Full stop. We're looking at close to $3 trillion spent and that's just on the things that weren't budgeted for... this doesn't include veteran's benefits, officers salaries, research and development, and the myriad of other things that are budgeted for with the nation's defense and which need to be ramped up in full production for the longest in US history.

If you want to talk Medicare and Social Security, we can. They are huge instigators in the National Debt discussion as well. But unlike the tens of millions of Americans who are over the age of 65, we can put a stop to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overnight, if we were so inclined.

[BioWareMod01]

This thread is being closed because it is becoming a political discussion.