The real source of our problems....

ecofarm said:

Yeah! Saddam never did anything wrong!

Click to expand...

He wasn't a threat to the US in the 2000s... at all.

Voltaire X said:

He wasn't a threat to the US in the 2000s... at all.

Click to expand...

I don't consider being a threat to the US as the only criteria for war. Unseating a (twice) genocidal dictator who was selling the food-for-oil is ok with me. I only wish Saddam had left behind some social capital. It might take a generation for things to really get developing in Iraq, even with its vast natural resources.

ecofarm said:

I don't consider being a threat to the US as the only criteria for war. Unseating a (twice) genocidal dictator who was selling the food-for-oil is ok with me. I only wish Saddam had left behind some social capital. It might take a generation for things to really get developing in Iraq, even with its vast natural resources.

Click to expand...

There are dozens of dictators all over the world, many who are worse than Saddam. It certainly wasn't worth the cost. More Iraqis have died in insurgent attacks since we came in in 2003 than under Saddam.

Voltaire X said:

There are dozens of dictators all over the world, many who are worse than Saddam. It certainly wasn't worth the cost. More Iraqis have died in insurgent attacks since we came in in 2003 than under Saddam.

Click to expand...

We must prioritize in the liberation of the world. Several factors lead to Saddam being the choice, perhaps foremost is the existence of natural resources that can be used for development instead of rape palaces, cronies, genocide and generally hurting the Iraqi people with their own stuff. Saddam killed everyone who did not become a yes-man, leaving behind no independent businessmen, professors, intellectuals or free thinkers. That is what holds Iraq back today. As soon as it develops some such social capital, I expect development to rival the Asian Tigers.

As far as deaths:
Iraq/Iran war: millions
Iraq/Kuwait war: ?
Genocide of Kurds: 200k
Genocide of Marsh Arabs: 50k
Children who starved due to food-for-oil being sold: 400k

And that is only counting the big stuff. Not including his wars, and only 'domestic stuff', he can get up to a million since the late 80s. A million at twenty years is 50k/year. The casualties resulting from US invasion, occupation and nation building are not 50k/year. The deaths today are not the result of genocide and the intentional starving of children. The country is trying to get on its feet with some semblence of democratic infrastructure. It is no easy task for such an internally ravaged country to rise again, but I believe that Iraq will become a great country in the next 50 years. There was no hope of that before, only 17 UNSCRs violated and the aforementioned. And he was a huge proponent of ecologic terrorism (sea coral, marsh genocide etc).

Misterveritis said:

Great idea. The defense budget is about 4-5% of GDP today. In my lifetime it has been as high as 8% of GDP. The US government spends about 25% of GDP. I think the chance that the military budget will ever be half of GDP is close to zero. So I really like that you have placed this threat clearly in the future.


The rules are both very complicated and ever changing. For better accountibility simplify the rules.


This is laughable. I suspect that if you provided a list of the independent ssources we would discover the usual suspects. What do the people who are responsible for mission performance say? What do the people who provide Congressional oversight say?

Click to expand...

The Congressional Record is one of those sources. 1968-1985 Yes I know a liberal rag

wolfman24 said:

The Congressional Record is one of those sources. 1968-1985 Yes I know a liberal rag

Click to expand...

You have made outrageous claims. And now you give me a source so broad, so sweeping as to be utterly useless. Awesome. Simply awesome. Please show me where in the Congressional Record some fool said the defense budget would be half of the budget. And then show me where anyone with oversight responsibilities said we could cut the defense budget by 30% with no ill effects.

Not to mention that you are citing from 1968 to 1985. Pardon me while I laugh for a moment. How is this relevant to 2012 or 2013?

While you are searching I shall remain very skeptical.

ecofarm said:

I don't consider being a threat to the US as the only criteria for war. Unseating a (twice) genocidal dictator who was selling the food-for-oil is ok with me. I only wish Saddam had left behind some social capital. It might take a generation for things to really get developing in Iraq, even with its vast natural resources.

Click to expand...

Whoa...that kind of thinking has us invading a number of countries right now. Including China.

RabidAlpaca said:

No, it is the very nature of the military and government. Waste is policy.

Click to expand...

Either waste, fraud and abuse is illegal or it is policy. Which do you believe it is?
If it is illegal and you observed it but did not report it why aren't you culpable? Would you fail to report a rape?

wolfman24 said:

Okay at least you can see my point. For you or anyone for that matter to say it did not happen just because it did not happen to you is not only rude but myoptic. Your comment of I'm skeptical is much practical.

Click to expand...

I know there are bad people everywhere. I can imagine a veterinary Captain believing he is the King of the World. I can imagine a 3-star general believing he is a minor deity.

It is interesting to watch how long it takes for some of them to realize they are no longer general officers once they reenter civilian life. For some the transition is very quick and they succeed. For others it takes longer and people wonder why.

obvious Child said:

Whoa...that kind of thinking has us invading a number of countries right now. Including China.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. It seems you missed my post 3 above yours. Let's be real.

ecofarm said:

We must prioritize in the liberation of the world. Several factors lead to Saddam being the choice, perhaps foremost is the existence of natural resources that can be used for development instead of rape palaces, cronies, genocide and generally hurting the Iraqi people with their own stuff. Saddam killed everyone who did not become a yes-man, leaving behind no independent businessmen, professors, intellectuals or free thinkers. That is what holds Iraq back today. As soon as it develops some such social capital, I expect development to rival the Asian Tigers.

As far as deaths:
Iraq/Iran war: millions
Iraq/Kuwait war: ?
Genocide of Kurds: 200k
Genocide of Marsh Arabs: 50k
Children who starved due to food-for-oil being sold: 400k

And that is only counting the big stuff. Not including his wars, and only 'domestic stuff', he can get up to a million since the late 80s. A million at twenty years is 50k/year. The casualties resulting from US invasion, occupation and nation building are not 50k/year. The deaths today are not the result of genocide and the intentional starving of children. The country is trying to get on its feet with some semblence of democratic infrastructure. It is no easy task for such an internally ravaged country to rise again, but I believe that Iraq will become a great country in the next 50 years. There was no hope of that before, only 17 UNSCRs violated and the aforementioned. And he was a huge proponent of ecologic terrorism (sea coral, marsh genocide etc).

Click to expand...

wolfman24 said:

No not at all i was merely supplementing your point with how many contractors bend the military weapons contracts to thier benefit. The way a defense contractor makes its money would be dependant on how diversified it was. If its sole purpose in life (and there several like this) is to make money off DOD and thereby us, then they must continue to do business as usual within that construct. But like you said the really big boys can probably get along with out the DOD, but also see it as the goose that keeps laying the golden egg.

Making war is not their business making money is. whether it be DOD or somewhere else they will find a way to do it.

Click to expand...

I am on the defense contractor side. Everything we propose is to meet a stated government need in a statement of work or Professional Work Statement. We don't make things up. We make every possible effort to meet our customers' needs considering what is most important to them. Sometimes speed in development and delivery is all important. And at other times affordability drives every trade study and decision.
Procurement and acquisition are very complicated. The government makes it far harder than it should be.

ecofarm said:

No, it wouldn't. It seems you missed my post 3 above yours. Let's be real.

Click to expand...

So basically you just have to kill pass a threshold then?

So massive human rights abuses don't count?

obvious Child said:

So basically you just have to kill pass a threshold then?

So massive human rights abuses don't count?

Click to expand...

Priorities. Reality.

I picked other. By which I mean the Jews.

I think defense spending is indeed a huge component of our problem however i also believe getting healthcare prices down, reforming safety nets, and fixing the tax system also are huge components. Shrinking and making more efficient departments is also a good place to start. I believe these are issues both sides could agree on if they got their heads out their asses.

Misterveritis said:

Either waste, fraud and abuse is illegal or it is policy. Which do you believe it is?
If it is illegal and you observed it but did not report it why aren't you culpable? Would you fail to report a rape?

Click to expand...

I just said it was policy. You don't even read what I write, do you?

There's nothing to report, they know how wasteful they're being. You tend to forget that the army can pretty much do whatever it wants in house and get away with it. Unless you want to start calling congressman. Good luck changing the whole system

cpwill said:

Your post here is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison, as you A) assume that 100% of spent money represents borrowed money and B) add in interest for that borrowed money to the cost and C) add in all future assessed liabilities. And that's before I get into the ridiculous nature of your source, which started with their conclusion and worked backwards.

However, by the standards you have proposed, the wars cost $3.7 Trillion. Social Security costs more than $8.6 Trillion. And Medicare costs more than $38.6 Trillion (I have not included the interest for the debt for either of those, which needless to say would radically increase their score).

The military is expensive. But it's not the thing driving our debt.

Click to expand...

Medicare and social security are staples that we've always had and are necessary. These necessary staples fall comfortably within the budget without the unnecessary wars and bailouts. The defense companies and companies like Halliburton realized that they could churn endless amounts of non-stop profit by
A. Buying the politicians and lobbyists and media because these are all you need to convince America that if we don't start these wars, the "terrorists" are going to get us. They then allocate billions and billions for defense spending with bills like the NDAA, have their cronies in the government see to it that THEY get all the contracts, and presto, you have set in motion an endless mechanism that does nothing but generate obscene wealth and power to those few. They are royally ganking us and it will not stop unless we stop it or until total economic collapse after which it has been suggested they will try to enslave us in camps. It's not too difficult to see this. There are tangible elements in every aspect of this that paint this picture.

"Bailouts" are just plain wrong in a capitalistic society. These elitist bankers piss on us but we're going to bail them out when they fail??? Unless every American is granted this luxury, we shouldn't bail out elitists when their business fails because when we default on our mortgage, they're not going to bail us out, they're going to throw us out! How about that bailout a few years back where the first thing they did was hand out bonuses with the money!

RabidAlpaca said:

I just said it was policy. You don't even read what I write, do you?

There's nothing to report, they know how wasteful they're being. You tend to forget that the army can pretty much do whatever it wants in house and get away with it. Unless you want to start calling congressman. Good luck changing the whole system

Click to expand...

You mentioned congressmen. Well, they are a problem. They are too comfortable and too greased. Proof of this is the way they pass bills nowadays that are
A. Unconstitutional
B. Unlawful
C. A threat to our sovereignty
D. Could even be construed as a declaration of war by the government against the American people

How is it that they so freely pass bills that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Mandatory vaccinations? Indefinite detention with no charges?
That's against the law. When bills are passed by congress that are against the law and violate the rights of citizens, they need to go. Period. I don't understand why they are still there. The same ones - THEY ARE STILL THERE! I don't get it.

sKiTzo said:

You mentioned congressmen. Well, they are a problem. They are too comfortable and too greased. Proof of this is the way they pass bills nowadays that are
A. Unconstitutional
B. Unlawful
C. A threat to our sovereignty
D. Could even be construed as a declaration of war by the government against the American people

How is it that they so freely pass bills that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Mandatory vaccinations? Indefinite detention with no charges?
That's against the law. When bills are passed by congress that are against the law and violate the rights of citizens, they need to go. Period. I don't understand why they are still there. The same ones - THEY ARE STILL THERE! I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Yep. Try to report wasteful military spending to a congressman and they'll just laugh "Who doesn't, son?"

cpwill said:

if we do not find a way to reign in costs while still extending the maximum possible protection to our lower-income seniors, then it will collapse, and they will be left in the cold :.

Click to expand...

We don;t need to police the world and wrongfully impose our will upon other cultures, but we need to take care of our elderly so lets reign in the ridiculous military spending.

Even if social spending is indeed higher, military spending is still enormous and certainly plays a big role when it comes to government spending.

TacticalEvilDan said:

Of course you are. Defense contractors make their money in a variety of ways ranging from the development of new technologies to the maintenance of existing fleets. Heck, there are plenty of friendly foreign countries to sell military gear to, as well.

In other words, they don't need us to go to war in order to make money, and considering our foreign policy of the last 40 years they certainly don't need a conspiracy in order to get us onto the battlefield -- all they have to do is be patient.

Click to expand...

As evidenced by incidents such as Gulf of Tonkin and USS Liberty, they don't have much patience.

iguanaman said:

I think the question is who has been controlling our foreign poilicy for the last 40 years? How much has the defense lobby influenced our decisons on what conflicts are in our own best interests?

Click to expand...

Precisely.

cpwill ... Social security is fully self funded ... so it doesn't add to the deficit at all. You can fix any future issues by just removing the Cap.

Medicare is also funded, it does have a minor problem, its called Medicare part D, which is nothing more than corporate welfare, also the ban on medicare negotiating price, which is rediculous and again nothing more than corporate welfare.

sKiTzo said:

Aren't you that guy that I've debunked in numerous other threads?

Click to expand...

No im the guy who debunked you over and over and over again