What are frivolous wars, Alex?

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "entitlement programs," and you don't need to answer in the form of a question. But you may pick a new category.

_________________

>2012
>still uses the phrase 'entitlement programs'
ishygddt

...all right, then what do you call them? Handouts? Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Redistribution of Wealth? What's more modern to you?

_________________

While we're at it, let's start calling military spending "penis enlargement costs" as well.
After all, it's only fair that both sides get a nickname.

_________________

EPIC FAIL art thread | Updated 09/30/2009 | Rawbawtz
Vote for The Zombie Hunters now! Vote here.

pfft, the us armed forces isn't a safety net
it's a jobs program



and here i thought i was in the 21st century, where "defense" doesn't mean "isolationism", and where the defense of _______'s interests outside of _______'s borders makes sense

you're just plain arrogant if you can't see that we need to maintain a large, technologically-driven (expensive) military in order to remain the hegemon over the next decade or two
not that we don't need cuts, though...

all those weapons the defense industry has supplied to every state they possibly could aren't just going to collect dust

which wars do you think were "frivolous"?

dictionary.reference.com:
1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice

unjustified wars? sure
but not "frivolous"

addendum: "Money spent on the military is money thrown away"?

pfft
the military isn't some faceless entity which makes away with billions of federal dollars to spend on war games
vast majority of the DoD's workforce are American consumers
ROTC programs, GI bill help/s people get educated
like/trust it or not, the military-industrial complex makes bread for a lot of people, like steel-workers
and then there's the fact that we removed the taliban from power, toppled a dictatorship, helped NATO topple a dictatorship, smashed al Qaeda's face in, and killed osama motherfucking bin laden with all that wasted cash

y'all ought to be worried about how the feds are gonna pay for social security and how much they'll have paid once the last baby boomer retires



looks like we got a regular machiavelli over here

Good to finally get recognition for having a bigger penis than you. lol

_________________

Defending national interests is just an excuse for modern imperialism, it has nothing to do with protecting the nation from foreign military threats. Unless of course you consider other nations having sovereignty a threat.



Will do a fat lot of good when the national infrastructure collapses from lack of maintenance and investment. The only nations which aren't using 50 year old tech are our allies and trading partners, there is massive deterrent from getting in a fight without us without even looking at the military.



If a gun is a gun then there's no sense in making an exceedingly expensive gun.



Congrats the military is just a giant welfare jobs program, that's still doesn't make it any better than so called entitlement programs. The feds will be able to pay for social security when they stop misappropriating it's funds.



Aside from national bravado these things did not improve the nation in anyway, so as you say; wasted cash.

Other nations with the spoken intent of "wiping [us] off the face of the earth" or something similar don't constitute a threat to you?

What about North Korea and Iran? In just a few years, they may pull something out of their ass that's actually terrifying, and instead of just testing it on their next-door neighbors, they use it to attack our ships, our planes, our territories or our allies. Shouldn't we be prepared for when that happens?

If your enemies have a [weapon] that is accurate up to 500 yards but suffers beyond its maximum firing range of 2000 yards, and your [weapon] is laser-guided for accuracy beyond 2000 yards, isn't that a huge difference in efficacy?

First of all, stick to one terminology or tell us what the alternative should be. Don't base me for using "entitlement programs" and then unabashedly use it yourself, otherwise you look like an idiot. I mean, you already sound like an idiot for saying "money spent on the military is money thrown away"---at least, to MetsFan. I just think you're writing without thinking, which isn't the same thing.

Second, when you say "The feds will be able to pay for social security when they stop misappropriating it's funds." Isn't that just a concession to the fact that the funds are being wasted? So why can't we say "money spent on entitlements is money wasted?" Because you think that money goes to good use and it would be wrong to question it?

Then don't re-elect Obama. That's all he's running on at this point. He can't say he's fixed the economy or even provided good healthcare for everyone. He can't say he's made foreign relations any better. Everything I've seen so far is his administration bloviating on what Obama "might" or "may" do to help people, and it's the same message he ran on in 2008, give or take the "change" part of it. It's also all the same stuff he talked about with the 2010, 2011 and 2012 State Of The Union speeches he made. All his recent campaign ads have something to do with him stealing credit for the SEAL team that took out bin Laden.

As for "improving" the nation, I'll give you that killing bin Laden didn't give us healthcare or rebuild our roads, make college any less expensive or put a "stop" sign on that street corner where the gazelle was killed, but why are you ignoring the fact that there's one less group of people that want to kill Americans?

_________________

Good to see that you're complete missing/ignoring the point in favor of ad hominem attacks.
Also, I hate plastic.
Al Qaeda still exists, and they still have other leaders.

_________________

EPIC FAIL art thread | Updated 09/30/2009 | Rawbawtz
Vote for The Zombie Hunters now! Vote here.

removing the taliban was necessary to begin the hunt for al qaeda and force them to go on the defensive
the iraq war was wasted cash
NATO bombing the shit out of Qaddafi was not a waste of money, people won't forget that there were Western planes up in the air while they fought tooth and nail for their independence. i think we kinda need friends in the region, or at least a few brownie points. worth it to see a stagnant dictatorship replaced with yet another vibrant quasi-democracy
and they have oil

Al Qaeda doesn't have any more teeth or any more stones. anyone with a brain can see that they won't be around for long
and it's hella hard to capitalize on what you do have while your shit keeps getting bombed and your people blown up

This all for Ruffdraft.

Iran and North Korea's threats are equivalent to a 5 year old saying that they are going to kick Georges St Pierre's ass. It's all bravado, they are not a threat on the global scale, they are far more a threat to themselves than they are to any one else. If they ever do become a serious threat it would take no time to crush them anyway especially if it's not just a unilateral invasion.

Secondly why do we need to keep spending almost 50% of the world's defense(military) budget? How is it we spend over 700 billion and have almost no ability to audit about 90% of it? Seriously for every project that is worth while for military R&D we seem to have a bunch of blunders or way over budget projects. How many times since Vietnam have we tried to replace the M-16/M-4 only to do a retrofit that hobbyists started performing 5-10 years earlier? How many times are we going to roll out some state of the art fighter that's going to probably spend as much time in a hanger as it ever will in the air? And how long are taxpayers going to have pay the bill for this shit instead of telling the military industrial complex to eat their R&D costs and pass them along when they finally create something worthwhile?

Thirdly, killing Osama one way or the other doesn't make us safer or at more risk of attack. Killing him may have demoralized Al Qaeda but it also to some have turned him into a martyr. Killing him might put a halt to some plans or it could be speeding up those plans to get revenge as quick as possible. Just because you kill the leader or figurehead doesn't mean that the body is dead.

Lastly, Sentios referred to the military as an entitlement program to mock you. So called entitlement programs wouldn't be a problem if they weren't raided to fund whatever the current people in power want.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

You took that as an actual attack? I thought it was perfectly clear that I was joking.

That last line, though... I don't know what that means.

I said group of people, not organization. Osama bin Laden and his immediate followers were killed or taken prisoner. That's a group of people. Al Qaeda is an organization. Spear-heading that whole organization would be very difficult.

See, that very idea, that they're not a threat, is what let bin Laden go to Afghanistan when we could have captured him back in the Clinton era. Should we take that mentality to North Korea, which is now headed by the unstable son of an unstable dictator? Should we let that unstable son have more unstable sons that might spread their collective instability across both North and South Korea?

Sure, we CAN take them out if something goes down---but the question really is, "should we wait that long?"

You know, I agree with you in part; I don't think we need to spend THAT much. I agree that cuts are necessary. In fact, as a military member I see a lot of expensive things that we could trim, costs that are over-inflated by union labor or over-priced contracting, and then there's the fact that a lot of the projects we get don't work right, but then we have to pay to get them fixed, and then those fixes have more errors, etc.

So I understand your point, and I really want to streamline it. But I'm not in charge of policy, otherwise I'd implement the steps necessary to fix it--and believe me, it'd be fixed.

Has an attack on America succeeded since 9/11? If you think they haven't tried, you're not being realistic. There have been scores of foiled attacks on American soil. How many people do you think are stopped at international airports attempting to smuggle explosives or bomb components? How many do you think make it through?

Keep in mind that bin Laden had been trained in military tactics by the United States at a time when it was necessary to do so. Other people, now, can no longer benefit from his experience; do you think the death of bin Laden in no way affected our level of safety?

Is that anything like union dues being used exclusively (or near-exclusively) to fund the Democratic party's re-election campaign?

_________________

You made a penis related joke, he mentioned plastic. If you join the words "plastic" and "penis" together you get a "plastic penis", or a dildo. A fake penis with no worth because it's not real. Or at least that's how i understood that jab.

_________________

For Ruff again.

The key difference is that Hitler had the infrastructure, resources and probably most importantly technology and strategy to be a threat to the whole world. Since the end of WW2 the specter of mutual assured destruction has kept a cap on the first world fighting with each other or even allowing one anothers lackeys go into a full on war. As soon as North Korea becomes a reasonable threat I'm sure China would tell them to hold their shit or probably fuck them up themselves or not protest a multinational coalition invade.

I'm going to say that killing Osama wasn't as big of a coup as people claim it is, what has unsettled Al Qaeda was ruining their safe haven in Afghanistan. Secondly, Osama didn't take those secrets to the grave, he made as much as he knew public to his followers as possible so I really don't think the US is much safer with him dead, but I don't think we are at much more peril with him dead either.

Here goes the deal with a union, you have a vote over how your dues are spent and if you don't like politics of the union and how your dues are spent you still have the option to leave it, but do keep in mind that union dues especially for smaller unions are spent in other avenues besides lobbying. You can't opt out of social security except by not working and for better and for worse social security isn't controlled by ballot initiatives.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

Why the Hell are most of the quotes attributed to me even.

_________________

EPIC FAIL art thread | Updated 09/30/2009 | Rawbawtz
Vote for The Zombie Hunters now! Vote here.

From BBC News, frontpage story:

Al-Qaeda leader killed in Yemen
An al-Qaeda leader in Yemen wanted in connection with the 2000 bombing of the American warship USS Cole, Fahd al-Quso, is killed in an air raid.

Another one bites the dust.

And I agree, Osama's death wasn't a turning point in the War on Terror. It was an accomplishment. An important one.

Don't fuck with NYC baby.

EDIT: Fixed.

Okay, now that that's done...
Suppose China decides to back North Korea. What then?

My contention was merely that bin Laden wouldn't be able to teach any *new* potential Jihadists, and he probably didn't teach everyone *everything* all at once, so it's very possible that at least some of the knowledge he had is lost.

I'm sorry, but your assertions are false. The entire purpose of unions is to protect their workers, not to favor political parties. Yet unions have been forcing people to join, and using their union dues illegally. It's not even a matter of voting on it because they don't allow a vote most of the time, unless they're sure they'll get a majority. This is all true.

Even so, Fedeal and State law says that public unions are not allowed to use those dues on political campaigns. So, to get around that, they create Political Action Committees and get their employees to donate to them (often disguised as voluntary donations).

They've also been known to hold mandatory political events--such as the October 2010 rally, which was organized and run by the unions. It doesn't show it in that video, but if you dig a little bit more, you find that many of the attendants were forced to be there. I can't find it on YouTube, but I do remember watching a segment on the news at the time from a man who says his union made it a mandatory event.

Here's some good information. This should give you a little insight into how the unions operate.

_________________

So you're implying that a nation which couldn't even take it's next door neighbor in a war at this point is going to run half way around the globe and pose any kind of threat to us? As for second link...
>jerusalem post
>a credible news source

Even then the article is about a counter attack in the event we attack them, so all your saying is if a foreign nation would try to defend itself from us then it's a threat.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability



Not if it costs 100 times more, you may as well be shooting bullets made of gold.



So you don't like it when your favorite buzzword can be used against you? Duly noted, but it doesn't change the fact that the military can be thought of as a welfare program.

Secondly that's a concession that there is massive unchecked corruption in the government, but that has nothing to do with the programs that are being deprived of their funds themselves. For example "money spent on entitlements is money wasted?" can only be true if the money IS being spent on entitlements, which it clearly isn't since they're underfunded. It also assumes that the money that IS actually spent on them is being wasted, which depends on many outside factors like efficiency. Without a doubt medicare is wasteful, but that's because our medical industry is exceedingly inefficient. As percentage, our medical administrative costs alone are 4-5 times higher than European nations.



I don't vote, it's all the same shit. I've not seen a candidate yet that I actually want in the oval office.

As for people who want to kill Americans you need to ask yourself how many we created in the process of chasing down the one. How many families were torn apart by arrests, assassinations, or as collateral for starters? It's important not to create a self fulfilling prophecy, but that's all the war on terror is. The extremists don't even need to try to convince people of the existence of the western aggressors because we are in fact aggressors from the west.



The reason I say modern imperialism is precisely because it's not like the imperialism of yesteryear. Today's imperialism is use of military force to back our control of other, typically developing, nation's economies. The end result is the same as imperialism, what's ours is ours and what yours is ours.



They're not mutually exclusive but they are fighting over the same pool of resources and the one that can use fear tactics and mass hysteria to sway the votes has been winning for a long time now.




Being the leader in ways to kill people isn't something to be proud of, especially not when your economy won't exist in 20 years.



It is a welfare program, it creates jobs that would not exist naturally in the economy with very few exceptions. By your logic I should be able to strap on some weights and go stand out in Nevada to collect a paycheck. Racing should be the highest paid profession and we need more doctors to treat people with conditions that they gave themselves by going against their own good sense and morality.



Call me in 10 or 20 years with an update on how appreciative they are of US involvement in their affairs. As for Al Qaeda, even if we destroy them they'll be back in a decade or two. You can't bomb your way out of people disliking you.



That mentality doesn't deter wars, it starts them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was a good one.



Are you talking about the Iran-Iraq War? Because Iraq started that, and Iran re-took all its lost territory not even two years into the war.
Also, Iran has the 8th largest military in the world, and even has its own goddamn arms industry which it built from scratch. They're catching up to the First World's tech pretty fast, too.
They could never pose a traditional military threat to US territory, but it could most definitely take on its neighbors.

I'll counter-argue your other points later.

You know, Sentios, for someone who complains so strongly about our society's problems, you don't actually seem to want to change them. You don't vote, and from what I can tell, you don't do activism, and you're not part of a cause or organization working to better our country... why is it worth our time to even be discussing these things with you?

_________________

That sounds like you're implying you need to be a cook in order to know when food tastes like shit. Additionally, if you're that much of a positive input, a major influence, definite asset, and a force in the fate of your country, wouldn't it actually be productive to listen to the arguments of an opposite point of view in order to refine your own views for when you actually meet an opponent that you consider "worthy of discussion"? :O

_________________

What I'm saying is that if he doesn't vote, he's effectively letting his voice be silenced--or, increasingly more likely, someone speaks for him. We cannot be blind to the fact that voter fraud exists. Even Democrats admit that voter fraud is commonplace---"an accepted way of winning elections".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's only Democrats. It happens on both side. Tom Feeney, Republican representative of Florida had a programmer fix the elections for him in South Florida. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

If someone knows you're not going to be voting, or statistically it's unlikely for you to vote, someone can forge your ballot and submit it in your place. The best way to prevent voter fraud is by ensuring that your district only uses paper ballots, AND VOTE.

_________________

I was talking about North Korea. They pose no threat in a declared war to any of the countries around them, they wouldn't be any threat to a nation an ocean away.



I want change, I just don't want your change. Here's a few of the changes I want:
Military Spending cut by at least half
A real medical reform, like to any of the solutions found by our european allies. No I don't mean any more of Obama style half assed health reforms.
Large scale investment in infrastructure projects; including roads, public transit, the electrical grid and non coal/oil/nat gas energy production solutions.
Doubling of NASA's measly budget
Raising the top tax rate to at least 50%



That doesn't change the fact that no one is worth voting for. If I'm to vote for someone I don't think is qualified to run the country then I may as well start eating arsenic and see how long I live. Last I checked there's no way to report all the candidates as being shit to the polling place.