Which is worse?

To keep the music chat from being un-interupted send all political opinons here. This is fortwayneMUSIC.com after all.

Moderators: zenmandan, MrSpall, bassjones, sevesd93

Haggard
Regular
Regular
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 4:19 pm
Contact:

Which is worse?

Post by Haggard »

Knowing your tax dollars are paying for _________? (insert illegal immigrants, welfare, healthcare, any other humanitarian effort)

or

Knowing your tax dollars are paying to liberate other countries?

(ATTN: Clique. This is not meant to inflame, just pose a thought)
This system cannot be reformed or voted out of office because reforms and elections do not challenge the fundamental causes of injustice.

[img]http://www.wm3.org/database_images/banners/WM3chainBLACKbg.gif[/img]
bassjones
Staff Member
Staff Member
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

Post by bassjones »

depends on one's point of view.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic

www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
Sankofa
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: home
Contact:

Post by Sankofa »

I agree with Brad, though I'll select the latter.

I'm not sure, but I think our liberation plans are more expensive.
bassjones
Staff Member
Staff Member
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

Post by bassjones »

I go the other way, just because of my personal philosophy. Also, it's kind of a loaded question since I'm assuming you're talking about Iraq, but we went in to neutralize a threat to our own security, along with ridding the Iraqi people of their dictator.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic

www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
Aero
Regular
Regular
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:47 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by Aero »

If by "liberating" you mean expanding our empire, I'd have to say money spent on other countries. We could save so much if we didn't have a foreign policy that makes the U.S. into the world police.
deek
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:31 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by deek »

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem expanding our empire if we didn't try and hide the fact. At least then we would have clear objectives!
[url=http://www.deeksworld.com]deek's World[/url]
bwohlgemuth
Addict
Addict
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Huntington, IN
Contact:

Post by bwohlgemuth »

Well....ok.....

Taiwan.....welcome back to Red China.
Iran......The Strait of Hormuz is yours.
Pakistan/Afghanistan.....welcome the Taliban back to power.

Now, if you don't mind setting off unbridled warfare between the Turks & the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq, the Indians and Pakis in Kashmir, Hezboallah and Syria v. Israel, the Chinese and anyone that surrounds them, along with making our allies the Japanese, the Europeans, and the Africans very very skittish and defensive. And could you imagine the sh*tstorm when the Saudis and Iranians finally square off?

Again, our investments overseas in Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, and a variety of other countries is not colonialism (read up on what the English did to their colonies....colonies give money/stuff to the motherland, not take it.....).

Yes, we could definitely save money if we brought everything back home. We did that after WWI. Didn't work out too well...
bassjones
Staff Member
Staff Member
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

Post by bassjones »

bwohlgemuth wrote:Well....ok.....

Taiwan.....welcome back to Red China.
Iran......The Strait of Hormuz is yours.
Pakistan/Afghanistan.....welcome the Taliban back to power.

Now, if you don't mind setting off unbridled warfare between the Turks & the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq, the Indians and Pakis in Kashmir, Hezboallah and Syria v. Israel, the Chinese and anyone that surrounds them, along with making our allies the Japanese, the Europeans, and the Africans very very skittish and defensive. And could you imagine the sh*tstorm when the Saudis and Iranians finally square off?

Again, our investments overseas in Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, and a variety of other countries is not colonialism (read up on what the English did to their colonies....colonies give money/stuff to the motherland, not take it.....).

Yes, we could definitely save money if we brought everything back home. We did that after WWI. Didn't work out too well...
Exactly.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic

www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
echosauce1
SuperStar
SuperStar
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:31 am

Post by echosauce1 »

Huh? I thought my tax dollars paid for whatever was decided by someone smarter than me to be in my best interests. Am I missing something here?
Sankofa
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: home
Contact:

Post by Sankofa »

bassjones wrote:we went in to neutralize a threat to our own security, along with ridding the Iraqi people of their dictator.
Iraq posed no viable threat to the US and our "liberation" of their people was the official reasoning after such failed proposals as WMD were proven to be without merit. The White House's campaign has increasingly destabilized the region and spread military resources thin thanks in part to Rumsfeld's idea of a new army.

This again is foolish bickering. Suffice it to say I'm surprised you'd opt to buy the party line from dead leadership.

I'm just thankful intelligence agencies found no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Not like it'll make a difference.

I feel bad for the next President. They'll have to get this nation out of the mess Bush Jr. and company have marched headlong into.
Aero
Regular
Regular
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:47 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by Aero »

bwohlgemuth wrote: Now, if you don't mind setting off unbridled warfare between the Turks & the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq, the Indians and Pakis in Kashmir, Hezboallah and Syria v. Israel, the Chinese and anyone that surrounds them, along with making our allies the Japanese, the Europeans, and the Africans very very skittish and defensive. And could you imagine the sh*tstorm when the Saudis and Iranians finally square off?
Most of the conflicts you listed shouldn't involve the U.S. - we're a secular country that doesn't need to get entangled in religious battles. We're declaring war too often, and the result is damage to our economy (we print more money and devalue our currency to pay for the debt) and lose our civil liberties. If we must focus on all these issues overseas, then when can we finally focus on what's important at home?
bassjones
Staff Member
Staff Member
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

Post by bassjones »

Sankofa wrote:
bassjones wrote:we went in to neutralize a threat to our own security, along with ridding the Iraqi people of their dictator.
Iraq posed no viable threat to the US and our "liberation" of their people was the official reasoning after such failed proposals as WMD were proven to be without merit. The White House's campaign has increasingly destabilized the region and spread military resources thin thanks in part to Rumsfeld's idea of a new army.

This again is foolish bickering. Suffice it to say I'm surprised you'd opt to buy the party line from dead leadership.

I'm just thankful intelligence agencies found no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Not like it'll make a difference.

I feel bad for the next President. They'll have to get this nation out of the mess Bush Jr. and company have marched headlong into.
I may not vote for anybody in the next election. Bush is a damn fool for how badly he's squandered whatever good will he had and the current crop of Republicans are ridiculous. The Democrats are interested in nothing so much as getting back their power and will say anything, go to any extremes, and destroy anybody to do so, even if it means painting a wartime President in ways that would have been considered treasonous just 50 years ago. I do believe that Bush - and an entire list of people I've posted a gazillion times, including an infinite number of extreme revisionists now declaring they knew all along - truly believed Hussein had WMDs and was preparing to use them on us and/or our allies. We have yet to take a single drop of oil from Iraq, so if oil was the reason for going in, somebody better get on that damn pipeline.

What's more dangerous, leaving that little pos bastard Hitler wannabe in Iran in power for another 10-20 years or pissing off the French again by taking his murderous, completely insane ass out now? I'd rather be Patton than Chamberlain...
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic

www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
poopstains
SuperStar
SuperStar
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: fort wayne

Post by poopstains »

Sankofa wrote:
bassjones wrote:we went in to neutralize a threat to our own security, along with ridding the Iraqi people of their dictator.
Iraq posed no viable threat to the US and our "liberation" of their people was the official reasoning after such failed proposals as WMD were proven to be without merit. The White House's campaign has increasingly destabilized the region and spread military resources thin thanks in part to Rumsfeld's idea of a new army.

This again is foolish bickering. Suffice it to say I'm surprised you'd opt to buy the party line from dead leadership.

I'm just thankful intelligence agencies found no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Not like it'll make a difference.

I feel bad for the next President. They'll have to get this nation out of the mess Bush Jr. and company have marched headlong into.
Aren't these statements contradictory, all the intelligence agencies, all over the world in fact, stated that there were WMD's but your saying it was faulty intelligence (I'm assuming) but then hold the new intelligence to be true. If the other intelligence was a lie, then wouldn't the new intelligence be a lie too or at the least as equally lacking in merit.
Sankofa
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: home
Contact:

Post by Sankofa »

poopstains wrote:
Sankofa wrote:
bassjones wrote:we went in to neutralize a threat to our own security, along with ridding the Iraqi people of their dictator.
Iraq posed no viable threat to the US and our "liberation" of their people was the official reasoning after such failed proposals as WMD were proven to be without merit. The White House's campaign has increasingly destabilized the region and spread military resources thin thanks in part to Rumsfeld's idea of a new army.

This again is foolish bickering. Suffice it to say I'm surprised you'd opt to buy the party line from dead leadership.

I'm just thankful intelligence agencies found no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Not like it'll make a difference.

I feel bad for the next President. They'll have to get this nation out of the mess Bush Jr. and company have marched headlong into.
Aren't these statements contradictory, all the intelligence agencies, all over the world in fact, stated that there were WMD's but your saying it was faulty intelligence (I'm assuming) but then hold the new intelligence to be true. If the other intelligence was a lie, then wouldn't the new intelligence be a lie too or at the least as equally lacking in merit.
They are not contradictory, especially considering the increased scrutiny intelligence agencies and their reporting of information are under since the botched mishandling of information. To suggest that the white house hasn't been trying to ramp up a war in Iran is disingenuous and I'm thankful they ran into a major roadblock.

Brad-as for your "what's more dangerous" question-I feel it's more dangerous to spread our military and budgetary elements thin when there are more immediate threats to our security. How is it with all the areas of conflict, the nation ends up selecting an isolated Hussein?
bassjones
Staff Member
Staff Member
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

Post by bassjones »

I believe we were trying to isolate Iran as much as anything. Iraq is a pretty good strategic vantagepoint to have a US friendly government in power. That guy really is nuts, as was Hussein. I'm glad we took him out of power and I think Iran is sufficiently isolated now. For all the posturing by other leaders criticizing Bush, they seem to pay a lot of attention behind closed doors.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic

www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
Post Reply