Bush is at it again.

[PaCrappa]

If liberating Afghanistan and Iraq was just for oil, then why have gas prices gone up?

LOFL. Since you're such a shrewd businessman, you'll probably want to jump on this nice oceanfront property I've got for you in Idaho.

I'm glad I don't feel like I have time to pick that whole turd of a post apart.

Pa

[Turrican]

The US military doesn't intentionally bomb civilians. We spent billions of dollars on smart weapons to avoid hitting civilians!

Not well spent money, I'm afraid

[VNAF Ace]

If liberating Afghanistan and Iraq was just for oil, then why have gas prices gone up?

LOFL. Since you're such a shrewd businessman, you'll probably want to jump on this nice oceanfront property I've got for you in Idaho.

I'm glad I don't feel like I have time to pick that whole turd of a post apart.

Oh, what's wrong? The truth hurt?

The US military doesn't intentionally bomb civilians. We spent billions of dollars on smart weapons to avoid hitting civilians!

Not well spent money, I'm afraid

How is spending money to avoid hitting civilians not well spent?

It doesn't take a military genius to figure out that killing civilians is a waste of time, money, and ammo.

[NTSC-J]

How is spending money to avoid hitting civilians not well spent?

It doesn't take a military genius to figure out that killing civilians is a waste of time, money, and ammo.

Haha, well spending money on the military like the US does goes beyond what could be considered a good idea.

Let's look at what has been "well spent":

The "Trident" submarine which can fire hundreds of nuclear warheads cost $1.5 billion and is absolutely useless, barring some sort of alien invasion.

The B-2 bomber costs over $500,000 apiece, so naturally we needed 132 of them (that's about $80 billion in total).

Nuclear weapon tests cost up to $12 million each time and yet have been done hundreds of times.

The B-1 bomber, a plane that ended up being so weak it couldn't survive a run in with a pelican, took $28 billion.

In 1985, $1.8 billion was spent on anti-aircraft guns called the Sergeant York, yet all ended up being useless and were scrapped.

And on and on. With all that cash spent, all of the poor kids in the world could be fed and driving BMWs to their 4-year colleges.

Hitting civilians is the least of the military's worries. They could give a shit, as evidenced by the past few hundred years.

I actually know of a technique that will cause no civilian casualties and will cost no money: don't go to war.

[VNAF Ace]

Even I admit that the Pentagon has wasted a lot of money. But I cannot support cutting military spending when we're at war.

I actually know of a technique that will cause no civilian casualties and will cost no money: don't go to war.

Not doing anything about oppressive regimes and terrorists also cause civilian casualties.

According to that "logic," I guess cops should always let criminals get away in high speed chases because there's a risk of civilian casualties.

[Rob]

According to that "logic," I guess cops should always let criminals get away in high speed chases because there's a risk of civilian casualties.

Awesome, we get to be the world's cops. We're Dirty Harry!

[NTSC-J]

Even I admit that the Pentagon has wasted a lot of money. But I cannot support cutting military spending when we're at war.

I actually know of a technique that will cause no civilian casualties and will cost no money: don't go to war.

Not doing anything about oppressive regimes and terrorists also cause civilian casualties.

According to that "logic," I guess cops should always let criminals get away in high speed chases because there's a risk of civilian casualties.

Oppressive regimes? What is the US but a bully, going where it isn't wanted doing things no one asked for. The chickens are roosting like crazy man, the terrorist attacks here aren't just out of the blue. The US has pissed off everyone and needs to stfu. Take all that cash and fix stuff at home, there are plenty of places it could go.

And it's not like this war is done for a humanitarian purpose, this is business. If the US cared about morality it would have gone into Rwaanda in the 90s and done something about that shit.

[VNAF Ace]

According to that "logic," I guess cops should always let criminals get away in high speed chases because there's a risk of civilian casualties.

Awesome, we get to be the world's cops. We're Dirty Harry!

Someone has to deal with those evil bastards before they hurt more innocent people. Excuse me for actually caring about others.

Oppressive regimes? What is the US but a bully, going where it isn't wanted doing things no one asked for. The chickens are roosting like crazy man, the terrorist attacks here aren't just out of the blue. The US has pissed off everyone and needs to stfu. Take all that cash and fix stuff at home, there are plenty of places it could go.

Oppressive regimes don't exist? Terrorists who are trying to murder ANYONE who doesn't share their insane vision of Islam don't exist?

It's not just America's problem. It's the world's problem.

And it's not like this war is done for a humanitarian purpose, this is business. If the US cared about morality it would have gone into Rwaanda in the 90s and done something about that shit.

We can't be everywhere at once. But if we have a chance to take out an oppressive regime, then sure as hell better do it.

[NTSC-J]

Someone has to deal with those evil bastards before they hurt more innocent people. Excuse me for actually caring about others...We can't be everyone at once. But if we have a chance to take out an oppressive regime, then sure as hell better do it.

lol, yea you really do care. How about the millions of people here that go hungry and live in shit conditions filled with drugs and violence? Oh yea we ship them overseas to go die there and kill others in similar situations.

And that's complete bullshit that we "weren't able" to intervene in Africa. What was stopping us?

[howmuchkeefe]

If there's one thing that can make one shmup fan want to punch another shmup fan in the mouth, it's politics. Funny, how your opinion of someone you've often joked and agreed with can suddenly change, just because they uttered support for socialized medicine/supply side economics/whatever.

...come to think of it, I've seen people go sour on each other over even more irrelevent minutiae. Nevemind.

I give this thread four sad pandas, out of a possible total of five. (four tiny sad panda faces here)

[BulletMagnet]

What do you propose we do then? Stick or heads in the ground and ignore the fact that the terrorists have declared war on anyone who doesn't share their insane interpretation of Islam?

Some would argue that we're less secure now than we were before 9-11, since we've not only inflamed the Islamic world via our ill-advised Iraq invasion, but have been proven time and time again to be woefully ill-prepared in the event of a terrorist attack on a chemical plant or some other such place. Not to mention that, in a valiant effort to Support Our Troops, we're cutting veterans' and war widows' benefits, and we wonder why army enrollment is down. If you want "sticking your head in the sand," methinks you've found it.

The US military doesn't intentionally bomb civilians. We spent billions of dollars on smart weapons to avoid hitting civilians!

I remember reading an article which stated that only about 1 out of 3 bombs dropped by the U.S. in the mideast is precision-guided. It's been some time since it was printed though, so who knows, they might have upped it some since. Then again, maybe not.

As for torture... Don't judge the rest of America based on the actions of a FEW idiots.

Haven't Alberto Gonzales and a host of other officials defended the use of torture as official policy? Not to mention "extraordinary rendition," as mentioned below? The "just a few bad apples" theory that came out of Abu Ghraib, to the best of my knowledge, was debunked ages ago.

The American gov't of 2006 =/= the American gov't of the past.

Indeed...back then we sent Japanese citizens to internment camps, nowadays we send Arabic citizens overseas for torture via "extraordinary rendition." No matter who we're fighting, we still need "the bad guy," who hates everything America stands for for absolutely no good reason, and must be stopped at all costs, whether that means tossing morals aside or suspending freedoms. Again, we're still in it for our own interests, nothing else.

Excuse me for fighting against an oppressive form of gov't.

You do realize that this is the exact same excuse that bin Laden and his ilk use to get people riled up to resist the U.S., right? And, if you missed my earlier post, he has evidence, namely the U.S.'s past support of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, among other things, back when Iran was "the bad guy who had to be stopped at all costs (even if we have to ally ourselves with someone like Saddam)"...and for the record, this wasn't a "liberal wacko" either, this is Reagan we're talking about. IIRC he sent Donald Rumsfeld, of all people, as an ambassador to Saddam, along with handwritten letters and a pair of golden spurs as a gift. I wonder if the troops ever found them when they looked around his palaces after the invasion.

Someone has to deal with those evil bastards before they hurt more innocent people. Excuse me for actually caring about others.

If you recall, the original rationale for invading Iraq was NOT for the purpose of bringing freedom to the mideast and all of that: it was because Hussein was supposedly allied with bin Laden (which, in retrospect, even on the surface makes little to no sense, since the two hated each other), and had WMDs (which was later toned down to "had the means to make WMD's," and after that to "had the desire to obtain WMD's"). Spreading democracy had nothing to do with it; if the Prez had asked Congress to declare war on Iraq back then for the sole purpose of "liberating the Iraqi people," he would have been laughed all the way back to the White House. And still, somehow, after all the information that's come out, people still believe that Iraq is and always was a vital front in the War on Terror, even though Al Qaeda and other such groups had zero presence in the country until we invaded.

And as for Rwanda back then, come up with whatever rationale you want for why we didn't go in at that point, but answer me this: why in the world aren't we doing anything about Sudan right now? Or any other place which is in similar straits?

As I said earlier, I really don't think anyone here "hates America," but seriously, if you honestly think that this country ALWAYS fights for "the right reasons," and is thinking of the best interests of the world at large and not just its own, you need to get your facts straight.

[PaCrappa]

Alright, let's try it again. From the top. For the wise wise college boy.

If liberating Afghanistan and Iraq was just for oil, then why have gas prices gone up?

Oh, I don't know... To once again post record breaking annual profits?

There's the truth boy. Watch the news a little.

Pa

[Turrican]

According to that "logic," I guess cops should always let criminals get away in high speed chases because there's a risk of civilian casualties.

Awesome, we get to be the world's cops. We're Dirty Harry!

No, you're Team America and I suggest anyone involved in this thread to watch that flick at least once!

[Acid King]

And that's complete bullshit that we "weren't able" to intervene in Africa. What was stopping us?

The UN chose to pull out after peacekeepers were killed. We shouldn't be the worlds police but at the same time, we get the blame for not intervening where we "should".

Again, we're still in it for our own interests, nothing else.

EVERY country is in it for their own interests. Though I know it probably wasn't your intent, the US catches flak for this more than any other country, when in reality, every country acts to protect their own interests and nothing more.

No, you're Team America and I suggest anyone involved in this thread to watch that flick at least once! Very Happy

Coming again to save the motherfuckin' day YEAH!

[Rob]

No, you're Team America and I suggest anyone involved in this thread to watch that flick at least once!

Netflix queue +1

[Neon]

The American gov't of 2006 =/= the American gov't of the past.

Past like...the 70's/80's? IIRC, most of those dictatorships were established after Vietnam.

[neorichieb1971]

Pentagon has something like 30 trillion USD of MUF (money unaccounted for) in its history.

So whatever is logged as spent, you can add that to the total.

[ST Dragon]

Someone has to deal with those evil bastards before they hurt more innocent people. Excuse me for actually caring about others...We can't be everyone at once. But if we have a chance to take out an oppressive regime, then sure as hell better do it.

You seem to be too obsessed with other nation’s “evil” regimes where as you’re over looking your own…
It's ironic how the US spends billions of dollars on the "War against Terror" where as they left their own people drown & starve when the hurricanes struck & flooded Louisiana State.
A lot of countries including some "evil Islamic" nations sent aid to the people of Louisiana when their own rightfully elected president was playing Golf with that retard dog of his & fighting the evil Muslims.
Where as, 1-2 years ago, when similar disasters struck Florida, US aid was given almost instantly.

Since the whole city was submerged, why didn't they just bring two of those huge US nuclear Aircraft carriers that were patrolling the gulf at the time, docked them close by and used them as shelters for the thousand homeless people that lost their homes after the floods?
That might have justified their high cost and could have been used for something good for a change, instead of killing people.

Oppressive regimes don't exist? Terrorists who are trying to murder ANYONE who doesn't share their insane vision of Islam don't exist?

It's not just America's problem. It's the world's problem.

I’m no fan of the Islamic world, but how come we don’t get any Islamic suicide bombings & no Arab terrorist attacks what so ever here?
We most definitely don’t share their own vision as we’ve been fighting the Arab/Islamic/Turkish world since the Byzantine times and we don’t even allow Mosques in the Capital city (Athens) nor in most other parts of Greece, so in that sense we’re more oppressive than them. But we still have no problems what so ever.

This is absolutely a US (and brother nations, UK, etc…) problem not the World’s.
So find the causes and deal with them… You want to fight for money, oil, power, glory? Fine, do so!
But please don’t try to justify your acts with arguments like “Oppressive Evil Regimes”, “Peace, freedom, human rights” or all those pathetic excuses presented by your president.
(Who arguably is not a very clever man so to speak)

[VNAF Ace]

To PaCrappa: If Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about oil, then why the hell is gas still so damn expensive? You seem to believe there's some grand conspiracy. If there was, then wouldn't it be in Bush's best interest to make sure gas prices didn't go up so people wouldn't get angry about gas prices? Why would he willingly risk pissing off voters?

To ST Dragon: My family lived thru hell under a real evil oppressive communist regime. Don't you dare compare the American gov't to some of the worst regimes in the world. To do so shows you know nothing about history or politics. Hell, America helped protect your own country from being overrun by communists!

As for what happened during Hurricane Katrina... The local, state, and federal gov'ts ALL share the blame for what happened. Many people also believed that the hurricane wouldn't be that bad. To pin all the blame on Bush is simply stupid and illogical. The mayor of New Orleans could've used the city's public transportion system to evacuate the people. The governor of Lousiana could've requested federal help earlier. And FEMA simply screwed up. As for your idea of bringing aircraft carriers in for shelters. Why bother? The National Guard were already moving people to other shelters on dry land using buses, choppers, and planes.

As for your idiotic comment regarding aircraft carriers as only good for killing people... Sometimes, all you need to do is park an aircraft carrier next to a hot zone in order to calm everyone down and avoid a major armed conflict.

And if you honestly believe that terrorism is only America's problem, then I strongly suggest to look at Bin Laden's declaration of war. He clearly states that they will intentionally murder anyone who doesn't share their insane views. And look at who those bastards have attacked: Spain, Britain, and even their own people! What makes you think they'll show Greece any compassion if gladly kill innocent Iraqi civilians?

We tried avoiding terrorists and oppressive regimes before and look at what happened: 9/11.

We know what the problem is: Oppression. That's why we need to spread democracy around the world. Who are you to decide who does and doesn't deserve the same freedom we enjoy?

[FatCobra]

I think is whole war in Iraq thing makes about as much sense as opening a pre-owned underwear store. Saddam was just a good excuse to bomb to the crap out of people barely out of the Stone Age, just so we can steal their oil?

I live in the USA, but as time goes by and I hear more of this bullshit about this war and the dumb things our president does, it makes me want to move to Europe. Think about it, almost every country in the world hates our guts and would be happy to drop a nuke on us, but the only thing holding them back is the fact that dropping nukes on people isn't very nice. I'm just talking about the sane people, what about those crazy terrorists? They'd probably nuke us in a heartbeat if they got the chance. I don't like politics since it's so confusing and sleezy.

Now I'm going to spring a conspiracy theory:

Wonder why gas prices are so high, and yet we still drive those wasteful SUVs? Car companies and the government are in cahoots with the oil barons and the barons are buying up the patents to alternative fuel sources (such as hydrogen).

[VNAF Ace]

We're not stealing Iraq's oil. The regular Iraqi people now benefit from oil profits instead of having Saddam hoard all of the money to build his fancy palaces. The Iraqi people are using the profits from the sale of Iraqi oil to rebuild their country.

As for your conspiracy theory... It doesn't make sense.

1) Alternative-fueled cars are simply more expensive compared to regular gas-fueled cars. There are also less places for you to refuel your car with something like natural gas.

2) In the case of electric cars, most people would rather spend 5 mins refueling their car with gas, than spend several hours charging up an electric car. Gas-electric hybrids, however, are a step in the right direction.

3) How would the US gov't get foreign auto manufacturers (such as Honda or Toyota) in on the grand conspiracy? Keep in mind that Honda and Toyota sell a lot of cars in the US.

4) SUV sales have gone down in the past few years. Auto manufacturers are now designing smaller, more fuel efficient SUVs. Just compare the current lineup of SUVs offered to the older bigger SUVs.

[it290]

And I suppose contracts for the management and contruction of oil infrastructure are totally insignificant? Don't kid yourself. The Administration has readily admitted their interest in Iraqi oil, so there's really no reason to pretend it's not a factor. Whether you believe their other reasons is another matter. I believe that personal vengeance may have played some role as well, but it's hard to prove that one so I won't claim it as fact.

[Brian]

Actually, Bush's "war of choice" is not really that hard to prove. He has said, and it was quoted in many places, "after all, he tried to kill my daddy." Now, that to me sounds like a guy who was out for revenge, pure and simply.

My problem with supporters of this war is that if you want to support the war based on WMD, fine. But, when none were found, Bush and his supporters drifted to the "he is a bad guy" defense. But, regardless of his and his supporters claims, that would never have flown at the start. I don't think anybody in America woke up in the morning and thought, "Gee, Saddam is a bad guy, I wish we would spend billions of dollars and kill thousands of soldiers and countless thousands of civilians in Iraq to rid him". It's a joke. Bush, and all his plans, his foriegn and his domestic plans have been a joke.

[VNAF Ace]

As someone who knows what it's like to live under oppression... I fail to see how liberating 25 million people from one of the most oppressive dictators in human history is a joke.

As for the WMDs... If Saddam didn't have WMDs, then why did he still give the UN crap when they tried to inspect his facilities? Now I know we didn't find any stockpiles, but what did Saddam have to hide? Why would he continue to screw with the UN when we made it clear that this was his last chance?

And then there's the fact that we wasted months trying to talk to the UN. Who knows what Saddam could've done in that time?

[it290]

Bush had already made up his mind to invade regardless of the UN. Saddam let the inspectors in and also provided a report to the UN (although this was deemed as inconclusive). The UN inspectors were satisfied that Saddam had not resumed his weapons programs -- see here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

We invaded anyway, but IIRC the only material breach of the weapons sanctions that was proven was that he had some missiles which were longer-range than allowed.

People will always say that it's possible that he managed to dismantle or hide his WMDs despite the presence of UN inspectors and the lack of anything having turned up for three years. Maybe that's true, but I find it hard to swallow at this point -- these things aren't that easy to keep quiet. Bush has (finally) admitted that he was wrong on the WMDs, and I'm sure he has more information than we do, so unless some evidence turns up, the argument that he was hiding some massive cache is pretty hard to support.

[VNAF Ace]

I'm not going to argue that Saddam had a massive cache of WMDs. But I wouldn't trust that insane bastard with a potato gun. Saddam was one of the most oppressive dictators in human history, and even openly challenged the US after 9/11 by offering money to suicide bombers. Those who aid the terrorists are no better than the terrorists themselves. He has used WMDs in the past (even on his own people). Saddam screwed with the UN and US for 12 years, and got what was coming to him. I'm glad the bastard is in jail where he belongs.

[PaCrappa]

To PaCrappa: If Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about oil, then why the hell is gas still so damn expensive? You seem to believe there's some grand conspiracy. If there was, then wouldn't it be in Bush's best interest to make sure gas prices didn't go up so people wouldn't get angry about gas prices? Why would he willingly risk pissing off voters?

Is Bush the CEO of Exxon, Shell, BP, Unocal, Chevron or any other petroleum company? No. He's not in control of how much money those guys make. Watch the news. Across the board, oil companies have posted record profits once again. Why did gas prices go up? So that oil companies could once again post record profits. Giant corporations always want to post record profits. That's certainly no conspiracy, it's the American way. Truth.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/01/3 ... ideo2.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies ... obil_x.htm

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060130/earns_ex ... html?.v=15

Exxon made 36 billion last year while sheltered little smartypantses like you were glad for the USA to be at war.

Good luck with them commies Einstein.

Pa

[it290]

OK, but even if you believe the invasion was justified (I don't, but I'm sure it or something like it had to happen sooner or later), do you really think it's been well managed? In recently released minutes from a Jan 31, 2003 meeting between Bush and Tony Blair, Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Bush's 'fix' for errors like that has mainly been to increase defense spending. True, we have to deal with the mess we've made, but I would prefer it be done it such a way that we don't have to make severe cuts to essential domestic programs simply to cover for Bush's fuckups.

As a supporter of the war, you may feel an increase in defense spending is justified, but do you really want to see health and eduction programs cut? Do you think it's right to keep cutting taxes with the deficit so high?

[PaCrappa]

I would prefer it be done it such a way that we don't have to make severe cuts to essential domestic programs simply to cover for Bush's fuckups.

That's communist.

Pa

[VNAF Ace]

Is Bush the CEO of Exxon, Shell, BP, Unocal, Chevron or any other petroleum company? No. He's not in control of how much money those guys make.

Exactly... So how can you argue that we're in Iraq just for oil?

As a supporter of the war, you may feel an increase in defense spending is justified, but do you really want to see health and eduction programs cut? Do you think it's right to keep cutting taxes with the deficit so high?

I don't think the gov't is very efficient when it comes to anything private companies can do. I'm all for a safety net, but I don't want to waste my tax dollars on anything as crazy as universal health care.

As for education. Money isn't goin to solve the problem. Firing corrupt bureaucrats, adminstrators, and incompetent teachers will. Unfortunately the teachers unions are very loud. Case in point, when Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to get a proposition passed that would've required teachers to work 5 years to earn tenure instead of 2, the teachers unions (made up of mostly incompetent teachers) opposed him.

I'm sure most of us have had bad teachers in the past. Example: My younger brother had an Math teacher in high school who usually failed about 2/3 of his class. My brother got a D in his Advanced Algebra class and he usually ges As in math classes! His teacher should've been fired years ago, but instead earns $60,000 a year just because he's been in the system for 20 years.

Making teacher tenure based on performance will weed out the bad teachers.