[QUOTE=Zeddy;27352592]Try again.[/QUOTE]
So you completely disregard the entire thing just because it's from a blog?
nice going
[QUOTE=Zeddy;27352592]Try again.[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha, okay. Continue to tell me how our glorious leaders don't have an agenda to start wars.. and that banks aren't really making money off war efforts.
Your right, its just a bunch of good guys doin' the right 'thang. Its for our safety.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;27352431]Yeah.. Banks profiting from wars is the exact byproduct necessary for them to get the gears of war into motion in the first place.
Why do they spend billions a year trying to better equip the soldiers? Because spending the money is how they make the money back through interest.[/QUOTE]
So by investing billions in soldiers and technology who will just die and be destroyed, the costs are recovered? I'm pretty sure that is the exact opposite of how investments work. That's like saying that if I were to invest all of my money in a company that I know is about to go under, I will some how recover my investment. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;27352673]So by investing billions in soldiers and technology who will just die and be destroyed, the costs are recovered? I'm pretty sure that is the exact opposite of how investments work. That's like saying that if I were to invest all of my money in a company that I know is about to go under, I will some how recover my investment. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but we're not losing the war, and we're creating debt for people to repay. Jesus christ it's economics.
But wait you already told me you figured out the Central Banking system in middle school.
[QUOTE=Melnek;27352656]So you completely disregard the entire thing just because it's from a blog?
nice going[/QUOTE]
Ok, how about this: He didn't even source the fucking blog. I could go get a quote from a conspiracy theorists blog. I could go get a snippet from a well versed birther's blog and post it in a thread about Obama and pretend my post is valid.
Modern war never seems to touch american soil. So the damages are repaid through various other methods, such as bonds. Central banks lend money to other banks. Who lend money to people. It's all interconnected. I suppose that's something your thick skull never picked up on in your middle school education.
You are right about something, and that is you don't need an institution to teach you something. But it sounds to me like you just want to justify the wars so you don't feel bad about all the lives being lost, and all the lives profiting from the losses. It exists, man.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;27352431]Why do they spend billions a year trying to better equip the soldiers? Because spending the money is how they make the money back through interest.[/QUOTE]
Because we have learned throughout history that having an ill-equipped armies is a bad idea.
The whole point of a maintaining a standing army is for it to be as best prepared as possible.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;27352716]Ok, how about this: He didn't even source the fucking blog. I could go get a quote from a conspiracy theorists blog. I could go get a snippet from a well versed birther's blog and post it in a thread about Obama and pretend my post is valid.[/QUOTE]
Just read what I fucking said. I don't need to source it.
When it says the U.S. It means the US Government not its citizens, we don't get to decide on shit.
[QUOTE=David29;27352759]Because we have learned throughout history that having an ill-equipped armies is a bad idea.
The whole point of a maintaining a standing army is for it to be as best prepared as possible.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but they can have a good military and profit off the production of the materials required to create a good military.
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;27352774]When it says the U.S. It means the US Government not its citizens, we don't get to decide on shit.[/QUOTE]
Well you do. But sadly it's pretty much
CHOICE A. A rich old fucker with five houses. and
CHOICE B. Some black guy youve never heard of.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;27352775]Yeah, but they can have a good military and profit off the production of the materials required to create a good military.[/QUOTE]
Oh no! A defence company is making money! CONSPIRACY!
Sadly I've learned that we dont really live in a Democracy-- because when it gets down to it, its either the liberals, or the conservatives.
(I realize Americans have different names for these two parties.)
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=David29;27352807]Oh no! A defence company is making money! CONSPIRACY![/QUOTE]
A defense company who gets lent money from a bank.
A bank is the only place that has the money to fund a fully functioning military complete with all the crazy ass military technology that we own.
Nobody has that capital on hand except a bank. And by the way, part of that loaned money is from you. Banks only function because everyone is required to use them.
It's no bogus conspiracy, it's just the way things have gone in the 20th century with banks. We've built up such a reliance on banks to do.. well, pretty much anything, that they can profit off anything that requires money. It's fucked. It isn't an evil scheme, we've just been born into it.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;27352695]Yeah but we're not losing the war, and we're creating debt for people to repay. Jesus christ it's economics.
But wait you already told me you figured out the Central Banking system in middle school.[/QUOTE]
Hah, read it again. Now you're just making things up.
You know, this just isn't worth my time. You keep repeating the same dogma over and over despite people consistently stabbing holes in it, you will never, [I]ever[/I], accept anything else. Go rebel against the evil banks and Capitalism some more, I've got more important things to do than try to argue with a brick wall. Have fun sticking it to the man.
Hahaha. You are, in fact, better than me.
[QUOTE=David29;27352807]Oh no! A defence company is making money! CONSPIRACY![/QUOTE]
The military industrial complex is bigger then the government.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;27352760]Just read what I fucking said. I don't need to source it.[/QUOTE]
One more post just for some fun.
From a book:
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
I don't need to source it, just read what I said.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA97P5D-y7M[/media]
[QUOTE=IStanI;27352907]The military industrial complex is bigger then the government.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't. If it was, issues like this would be swept under the carpet:
"BAE Systems has been under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, into the use of political corruption to help sell arms to Chile, Czech Republic, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tanzania and Qatar.[114][115][116] In response, BAE Systems' 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report states "We continue to reject these allegations...We take our obligations under the law extremely seriously and will continue to comply with all legal requirements around the world.[117] In June 2007 Lord Woolf was selected to lead what the BBC described as an "independent review.... [an] ethics committee to look into how the defence giant conducts its arms deals."[118] The report, Ethical business conduct in BAE Systems plc – the way forward, made 23 recommendations, measures which BAE has committed to implement. The finding stated that "in the past BAE did not pay sufficient attention to ethical standards in the way it conducted business," and was described by the BBC as "an embarrassing admission."[119]"
[QUOTE=David29;27353005]No, it isn't. If it was, issues like this would be swept under the carpet:
"BAE Systems has been under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, into the use of political corruption to help sell arms to Chile, Czech Republic, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tanzania and Qatar.[114][115][116] In response, BAE Systems' 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report states "We continue to reject these allegations...We take our obligations under the law extremely seriously and will continue to comply with all legal requirements around the world.[117] In June 2007 Lord Woolf was selected to lead what the BBC described as an "independent review.... [an] ethics committee to look into how the defence giant conducts its arms deals."[118] The report, Ethical business conduct in BAE Systems plc – the way forward, made 23 recommendations, measures which BAE has committed to implement. The finding stated that "in the past BAE did not pay sufficient attention to ethical standards in the way it conducted business," and was described by the BBC as "an embarrassing admission."[119]"[/QUOTE]
The media is bigger then you think, with journalists everywhere it's hard to sweep something like that under the rug. That is the main difference between US and Russia, in Russia the media is just as corrupt as the mobs who run it.
[QUOTE=IStanI;27353081]in Russia the media is just as corrupt as the mobs who run it.[/QUOTE]
You've never really been to Russia have you
[QUOTE=IStanI;27353081]The media is bigger then you think, with journalists everywhere it's hard to sweep something like that under the rug. That is the main difference between US and Russia, in Russia the media is just as corrupt as the mobs who run it.[/QUOTE]
That's irrelevant. That BAE Systems was forced to undergo a review shows that defence companies are not able to get away with whatever they like. If they were as 'all powerful' as you make them out to be, nothing would have come of this review.
Goddamnit Mr. President, that was a campaign promise :I
Dude promised to pull out.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27352189]"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu[/QUOTE]
while he may be correct, this particular quote is not very strong since he has not been around for a long time to talk about a certain instance
The USA came there to find terrorists and exterminate them, not to build a new nation. That is what they should continue to do. But if building a new nation is the best way to do so, then they should build a new nation.
[QUOTE=goon165;27350885]oh no we're not.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be surprised if we stayed longer.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;27350902]Kind of ironic considering how a lot of people voted for Obama assuming war [sp]Apparently, only in Iraq[/sp] was going to end.
That was a clever play by Obama, I must say. "I think we should stop the war." .."In Iraq.'
Saying nothing about increasing the war effort in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
I gave you a dumb rating, but it's special because I don't do it often.
I'm [i]convinced[/i] that Obama had the intention of stopping the war when he was running for office.
Well then why are we not out of it?
Because it's probably a lot more complicated than just signing a few papers and flying some troops home. What's the reason for our continued presence? I have no idea.
Say what you want about the legality or the justification for the invasion, but the US (and whoever else can afford to)needs to stay longer in Afghanistan if any kind of stability is to come about. I'm sure a lot of you have at least heard about the problems in the Afghan government through Wikileaks or whatever- Afghanistan's government is weak, corrupt and incompetent and the army pales in comparison to any force assisting it.
I think the US needs to stay in Afghanistan longer to ensure any kind of stability in the region.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;27360083]Say what you want about the legality or the justification for the invasion, but the US (and whoever else can afford to)needs to stay longer in Afghanistan if any kind of stability is to come about. I'm sure a lot of you have at least heard about the problems in the Afghan government through Wikileaks or whatever- Afghanistan's government is weak, corrupt and incompetent and the army pales in comparison to any force assisting it.
I think the US needs to stay in Afghanistan longer to ensure any kind of stability in the region.[/QUOTE]
My thoughts have always been "Damn the stability of the region, bring our troops home".
Afghanistan,through out its entire history, has never been what the west calls "stable". Let the hornets nest buzz if buzz is what it wants to do.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;27360083]Say what you want about the legality or the justification for the invasion, but the US (and whoever else can afford to)needs to stay longer in Afghanistan if any kind of stability is to come about. I'm sure a lot of you have at least heard about the problems in the Afghan government through Wikileaks or whatever- Afghanistan's government is weak, corrupt and incompetent and the army pales in comparison to any force assisting it.
I think the US needs to stay in Afghanistan longer to ensure any kind of stability in the region.[/QUOTE]
I think we need to realize that Afghanistan is one of the last places on Earth to ever be stabilized.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27360172]My thoughts have always been "Damn the stability of the region, bring our troops home".
Afghanistan,through out its entire history, has never been what the west calls "stable". Let the hornets nest buzz if buzz is what it wants to do.[/QUOTE]
They don't call it the Graveyard of Empires for no reason.
When are they going to learn.
Fuck sakes. Stop spending so much money on war. Deploy about 20-25 thousand troops in Afghanistan. Deploy trainers to train their military/police/government officials.
5 years or so later, Tadah!
Was it that hard?
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;27358339]Goddamnit Mr. President, that was a campaign promise :I
Dude promised to pull out.[/QUOTE]
Strange, that's what she said.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.