The 'Jihad' Rant: Prove Me Wrong (warning: might be offenisve)
POSTED BY: HiroStone
UPDATED: Sunday, December 28, 2025 08:00
VIEWED: 22653
PAGE 9 of 11
As for setting up Afghanistan, there is a big difference between supplying arms and intel to one side of a war, and then demanding the form of government that side chooses after they win. We have a lot of folks demanding that we not "impose" our "values" on Iraq. We did exactly what they wanted in Afghanistan, and we ended up with the Taliban and UBL.
I will acede to your assertion UBL was born in Saudi Arabia. But his father was still Yeman and that is part of the problem. As a Yeman, he was looked down on, (both him and his father) by the rest of Saud society. He could never be a Saud, and while he could make a lot of money, as far as political power or socail status, he was stuck as a foreigner and a peasant.
This present war has been called the Saudi Civil War, and in a way it is. The Sauds have developed a unique tactic, in that they've had their civil war everywhere but their own nation. Well, until recently.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
The down side is trying to afford 50% percent of the worlds defence spending on perhaps 25% its wealth
Again we are getting into a problem between relative and absolute numbers. If you owned half the cars in your community, is that because you can afford it? Or because the rest of your town thinks walking is a better idea?[Or both?]
Most of the nations in Europe, have depended on us to protect them from the Soviet Union. Which allowed them to raise their social welfare benefits. And now that we are withdrawing, they find themselves kinda stuck between reducing benefits or increasing their military. For them its a tough call, especially considering the regulatory atmosphere and the detrimental effect that has on wealth creation and economic growth.
You can only spend the money once. And if you have a lot more of it, you can spend a lot more only once.
I have not read up on the cancelation of the Commanche. So I am not sure if this was a good business based decision or not. If the added capabilities of the new chopper were worth the pricetag. Apparently the government did not think so, and that is why it got cancelled. Looking at the strategic picture, and the kinds and nature of combat we are likely to face in the near future, its hard to argue with that possibility.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Ok, it really ticks me off whenever people say that we attacked Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Hussein’s brutal regime. Yes, I know he was a bad person, he gassed the Kurds, he tortured hundreds of people, massacred thousands more, etc. But America does not invade a nation to free its people.
This is sorta true and sorta not. Yes, it is true we went into Iraq to keep the US safer. But as a means of that goal, we liberated the Iraqi people. And we are trying to get a functioning democratic government in there, one that will respect the rights of their minority populations (one thing that is scaring the, well, scaring the Sunnis right now pretty badly)
By helping create a functioning and free government, this will allow Iraq to succeed as a nation. This will give the Iraqi people something about themselves to feel good about, as well as show in stark contrast all the problems in the other dictatorships in the region. If the Iraqi people can do it, why can't the Syrian, or the Iranians, or the Sauds? MAybe the problem is what other folks are doing to their nations, but what their own governments are doing to their people.
So as a goal, the liberation of the Iraqi people is not it. But as a means of achieving that goal, that is what we did and are doing.
And if you are an Iraqi, does it matter? Isn't having Saddam off your throat not a good thing in and of itself? The intentions of whoever did it is secondary, the effect that removing Saddam will have on the Iraqi people is what matters. Both to them and to us. (Even if it was an accident
)"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or, another way to look at this was rewatch Jaynetown. Did the mudders give a damn whether Jayne dropped that box of money on them by accident or design? No. It helped them and that was all that mattered.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In many ways, the US can't win in post-war situations like these: do the job and clear out - you're destabilising the country and leaving the indigenous population to sort out the mess you made; stay to fill the power vacuum - you're destabilising the country by imposing an occupying force and dictating the political situation. There are, of course, positive arguments for both these approaches (such as the arguments for each against the other! 
), but these tend to get forgotten at the time.
Personally I think staying to sort out the situation is, in principle, the right course of action, having gone in there in the first place.
The approach of insisting on giving most of the re-building contracts to US companies, however, plus the imposition of US control over all import and export (including oil), does suggest the motivation for the war was more than simply WMD and 'war on terrorism'.
There are, of course, claims that the USA SHOULD have the majority of control over these things, being the major player/contributer to the war in the first place, but if the motivation were really altruistic (and GWB has come out and said that they were deliberately freeing the Iraqi people), wouldn't it make more sense for the Iraqi economy to be giving those contracts out locally, or at least in partnership? Or maybe they are, and I'm way off base here. If anyone has further information to disprove my point I am, as always, intrigued.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Again we are getting into a problem between relative and absolute numbers. If you owned half the cars in your community, is that because you can afford it? Or because the rest of your town thinks walking is a better idea?[Or both?]
The drastic increase in the National Debt demonstrates that the United States cannot afford its defence spending. It is borrowing money from the rest of the world which it will have to pay back with interest
To coin a phrase. Voodoo Economics!
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Most of the nations in Europe, have depended on us to protect them from the Soviet Union.
Given that better than 70% of NATO Forces arrayed against the Soviets were European that's not entirely accurate but it is the case that as a % of GNP the WEU (European NATO) did devote less of its wealth to defence. That was as much due to the lack of massive ICBM Forces and Carrier Battle Groups as anything else though. We expected to be fighting on our home turf not overseas
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Which allowed them to raise their social welfare benefits...
...regulatory atmosphere and the detrimental effect that has on wealth creation and economic growth.
It's a trade off. For the most part we'd rather be happy than rich which is why we work shorter hours, take longer holidays and pay more tax to pay for a comprehensive welfare state
Regulations are generally bought in to increase worker rights at the expense of employers. It really doesn't effect things as much as you may think either. The most regulated, statist, "liberal" country in the EU is probably Sweden. It's also the one with the highest standard of living
You pays your money and you takes your choice in deciding whether to spend your wealth on Arms or Free Medicine. However one thing you should not do is fund your spending of any kind with your grandchildrens paychecks and that's what you do when you deficit spend
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
The drastic increase in the National Debt demonstrates that the United States cannot afford its defence spending. It is borrowing money from the rest of the world which it will have to pay back with interest
To coin a phrase. Voodoo Economics!
Or there are other things we cannot afford, such as Medicare or Social Security.
The real question is whether we can afford to NOT defend ourselves to the best of our abilities.
I don't think playing up the deficit is going to work well in the long run. The 80's showed us that the deficits did not matter a whole heck of alot, and in fact helped rein in congressional spending.
Quote:
It's a trade off. For the most part we'd rather be happy than rich which is why we work shorter hours, take longer holidays and pay more tax to pay for a comprehensive welfare state
Regulations are generally bought in to increase worker rights at the expense of employers. It really doesn't effect things as much as you may think either. The most regulated, statist, "liberal" country in the EU is probably Sweden. It's also the one with the highest standard of living
You pays your money and you takes your choice in deciding whether to spend your wealth on Arms or Free Medicine. However one thing you should not do is fund your spending of any kind with your grandchildrens paychecks and that's what you do when you deficit spend
First off, there is no such thing as "Free Medicine" Someone picks up the tab. There ain't no free lunch.
Second off, when one of our worse states economically, Mississippi has a higher GDP than Sweden, your argument loses all its effectiveness.
Third, thank you for your advice, but you will understand if we take it with a grain of salt. We'll take care of our own situation, and we find your concern rather troubling for the most part. Your comment about rather being happy than rich, does not strike us as genuine, especially after complaining about how we own too much, or have too much. The previous comment comes across as envy, the latter comment, well seems contradictory.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AJ:
The approach of insisting on giving most of the re-building contracts to US companies, however, plus the imposition of US control over all import and export (including oil), does suggest the motivation for the war was more than simply WMD and 'war on terrorism'.
Again, intentions don't matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What matters is if the Iraqis are free from Saddam's tyranny. And also, for selfish bastards like me, whether that helps or hurts our national interests.
The contracts are being paid for with US tax dollars, so I think the guys handing out the money have every right to decide whom they deal with. If they go to American companies, all the better. If they go to foreign companies that can do the job, well, that is less better than going to an American company that can do the job, but as long as the job gets done, that is what really matters.
Funding folks who hate and oppose our national interests is not a smart thing to do. Sorry, if your country backed the wrong horse, there are consequences to that choice. Just as there are consequences to our choice. Complaining about those consequences to us, well, maybe you should have chosen differently.
You can't not support the war, which many here see as in our national interest and for our self defense, and then expect us not to look at you oddly when you got your hand out for the post war reconstruction contracts. I doubt you would act differently if the sitation were reverse, because I doubt you are that much a fool.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Second off, when one of our worse states economically, Mississippi has a higher GDP than Sweden, your argument loses all its effectiveness.
That, I would think, depends on the standard of living in Mississippi. After all, that was the point being made.
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Your comment about rather being happy than rich, does not strike us as genuine, especially after complaining about how we own too much, or have too much. The previous comment comes across as envy, the latter comment, well seems contradictory.
I think being happy rather than rich is something aspired to by many people across the world - including America (although many also confuse the two!). From the outside, the Americans who feel this seem to be in a minority, but maybe that's not the case.
I don't recall Hotpoint doing any complaining, merely observing. I shall go back and re-read in case my memory is not serving me well here.
Regarding envy, I think a large proportion of the UK is afraid of Americanisation - that is, not becoming like Americans, as such, but rather living with "Americanism" - where we get the elements of US life that even a large percentage of US residents may not like (e.g. the 'dumbing-down' trend, reality TV, fast food that resembles cardboard, lawsuits for anything, obsessive business-orientation with buzzwords, escalating gun crime etc...) - without any of the positives. Add to this a general inclination by our government to be a nominal "51st state", and you begin to see why envy is perhaps not the best word to use here. From my point of view, I think we do take on board a fair few positives (not least of which being Firefly itself, and some of the more creative/imaginative literature and movies produced by the US), but the negatives of the type listed above are perhaps more apparent to the population as a whole.
I'm assuming the contradictory remark relies on the concept that Hotpoint was actually complaining in the first place, but again maybe I've misread/misremembered this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Or there are other things we cannot afford, such as Medicare or Social Security.
Hey it's your choice but if you'd rather let the poor and the eldery suffer than build a few less (easily counterable) ABM systems that's your choice. It's not the one we'd make
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
The real question is whether we can afford to NOT defend ourselves to the best of our abilities.
You could easily defend yourselves from all forseeable threats by spending your money on more useful things. For example America needs light infantry in Afganistan and Iraq and is building warships and overpriced Fighters
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I don't think playing up the deficit is going to work well in the long run. The 80's showed us that the deficits did not matter a whole heck of alot, and in fact helped rein in congressional spending.
The recession of the early 1990's and the Tax hike introduced by Bush Senior doesn't really fit your hypothesis I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
First off, there is no such thing as "Free Medicine" Someone picks up the tab. There ain't no free lunch.
I meant free at the point of supply as you well know. We pay for our Health Care as taxes
BTW as a percentage of national GDP we only pay half in the UK what you do in the USA on healthcare because our medical system is geared towards treating people not making money
If you adopted our system you could actually have more free spending money in your wallet (even after paying higher taxes) because you wouldn't have to spend it on health insurance!
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Second off, when one of our worse states economically, Mississippi has a higher GDP than Sweden, your argument loses all its effectiveness.
Ever lived in Sweden? And in any case the specific point I was making is that standard of living is not dependent on personal wealth alone
No offence but this was not the first time you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I don't think it's the way I'm putting things either
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Third, thank you for your advice, but you will understand if we take it with a grain of salt. We'll take care of our own situation, and we find your concern rather troubling for the most part. Your comment about rather being happy than rich, does not strike us as genuine, especially after complaining about how we own too much, or have too much. The previous comment comes across as envy, the latter comment, well seems contradictory.
Don't believe me if you choose, just check the facts before dismissing what I say (I mean all the facts not the one's you like to believe) Also please read the book I recommended. Plus a few books on economics for that matter
When did I say you had "too much" btw?
I'm not envious of the way you live in the USA. I've been there a few times and whilst in some ways I liked your country I prefer it here for numerous reasons
Finally have you travelled around in Europe much because you seem at face value to have a somewhat distorted view of things here?
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME