Obama - Address to the Nation

AJ Rimmer said:
Well, no.

I mean... America's military is great, and all that, but the combined armed forces of Europe? More. China? More. Russia? Less, but only by a third. And since most of your military is geared towards fighting third world countries, there's really no telling how either side would fair against a high-tech opponent. Which is why the nukes would start flying fairly soon, so hopefully (and very likely) it's not gonna come to that.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that your grasp of the abilities of the American military forces is quite limited, and would like to assure you that the US prolly could take over Europe, or most of Asia single-handily if given the reasons to do so.

The United States has never "geared itself for fighting third-world countries" save for exceptions like MRAP and stuff. On the contrary, it's geared toward fighting everyone on the globe, or goddamn aliens. You don't need F-22s to fight Syria, Iran, or North Korea (Or seriously, China, Russia, etc. It's overkill.). You also don't really need 20 air carriers. If a war broke out between China and the US, I would bet all my worldly possessions that the US would without a doubt win the war.

Most of American weaponry would be overkill for any single nation.
 
Erestheux said:
Krynn reporting: everybody still not as smart as him! Now for the weather.

It's not the biggest gap in logic to say armies generally keep many troops in a location after a long and devoted war, after the main combat has ended. Obviously Japan, Germany, Korea, and Iraq are all totally different countries with different circumstances, good for you, totally didn't realize that! But whoops, we've had two modern recent wars there, it is rather obvious that many troops will stay in the established bases for quite a while.

BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME, I'M SO UTTERLY STUPID, OH GOD
Click to expand...

The problem is you guys keep comparing what is happening in Germany, South Korea, and Japan to what is happening in Iraq. That's a totally bullshit comparison. Iraq is a war zone, those other countries are not.

So when you say something like this:

The US has troops stationed all over the world. Since there are about 30k troops in Japan and 50k troops in Germany, is WWII also not over?
Click to expand...

You really need to think that through a bit more. 400 people didn't die in Germany last month as a result of war, but they did in Iraq. But again, let me know if you wanna prove how safe of a place Iraq is. I'll buy you the plane ticket.
 
15357 said:
I want that F-117. Oh the possibilities.

Someday, when aliens invade, we're all going to be grateful for the shitloads of money that the US pours into building stuff that blows up other stuff.
Click to expand...

Easy to say when you have universal health care.
 
'Tis a small price to pay to have full spectrum dominance all around the globe.



But seriously, healthcare shouldn't be that hard to do. Just force everyone to give up a few percent of their income, tell them it's for the Pension Service, and promise them they'll get it back when they retire. And use that for health care. Doesn't matter if you overspend, as long as you have a growing population, the younger generation will pay for the retirees and the universal health care.
 
Erestheux said:
Krynn reporting: everybody still not as smart as him! Now for the weather.

It's not the biggest gap in logic to say armies generally keep many troops in a location after a long and devoted war, after the main combat has ended. Obviously Japan, Germany, Korea, and Iraq are all totally different countries with different circumstances, good for you, totally didn't realize that! But whoops, we've had two modern recent wars there, it is rather obvious that many troops will stay in the established bases for quite a while.

BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME, I'M SO UTTERLY STUPID, OH GOD
Click to expand...

You were comparing the situation in Iraq to those in Japan and Germany. No Limit said the fighting isn't over for the troops still there and that its clear the war isn't over. Your comparison suggests that because the war in Germany and Japan is over despite troops still being stationed there, so it is with Iraq. Thus, a stupid comparison with stupid logic.



Also, America wouldn't have much trouble with other first world nations. We spend so much god damn money on our military its not even funny. Every platoon in our army would be far better equipped than one in another nation. Not to mention, most of other nations' military products come from the US, which obviously would end if we were at war. Plus if we were fighting for a real reason, you'd see our numbers rise dramatically.

adc63976335c241e1e1a089.png
Mmm. Deliciously wasteful military spending.
 
Raziaar said:
It's ridiculous that we still have soldiers stationed in those parts of the world, so long after the conflicts.
Click to expand...

You never know what those Germans will be up to next! Gotta keep an eye on Jerry.
 
Raziaar said:
How many people have you spoken to who live around military bases abroad? I mean... that's quite a ridiculous claim to have made, unless you were like, some sort of pollster operating within many foreign nations and your job was to figure out what the locals thought of the US military bases. I mean, of course I'm not saying you're lying or wrong(since I have no idea and I don't really care), but the actual slice of individuals you would have talked to would be completely insignificant.
Click to expand...

How is it a ridiculous claim? I'm sure you know many too and don't realize it. I can think of about 5 to 10 in my immediate family alone who've been stationed abroad in friendly countries (germany USAF, South Korea, etc etc), as well as many friends/acquainences.

Not all of them are there AS WE SPEAK but were there for quite a while when they were.
 
Mr Stabby said:
America spent a trillion dollars to seize Iraqs oil fields, wonder how many barrels of oil you need to make it worth while. Although China seems to be getting more of Iraqs oil than America.
Click to expand...
Our nation's deficit to China makes me wonder if that's why China get's the spoils instead of the US.
 
Mr Stabby said:
America spent a trillion dollars to seize Iraqs oil fields, wonder how many barrels of oil you need to make it worth while.
Click to expand...

We'll let you know when we get a barrel full...
 
Blurf about conventional forces is irrelevant, any conflict on the scale that you've been talking about would never happen because of MAD, and if it did despite that nukes would end it.
 
Nukes do not render useless conventional forces in a wide-scale conflict because

#1. You cannot use nukes against invaders already in-country

#2. The usage of nuclear weapons can only be limited

#3. Advances in missile interception technology, the availability of global surveillance, etc. allow for gaps in nuclear arsenals

#4. Nuclear weapons, if used, can only be used alongside conventional forces, unless the aim is the swift destruction of all enemy "value" and "force" targets. I hardly think that the US would aim for that, and China's nuclear arsenal is too small to compete with the US's. Russia, is a different story.
 
15357 said:
But seriously, healthcare shouldn't be that hard to do. Just force everyone to give up a few percent of their income, tell them it's for the Pension Service, and promise them they'll get it back when they retire. And use that for health care. Doesn't matter if you overspend, as long as you have a growing population, the younger generation will pay for the retirees and the universal health care.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

I don't know if you did it on purpose, but you just described Social Security (The program / gvt agency, not the concept). And they already have bled that dry. It'll be running a deficit - paying out more than it brings in, in not too long.

By the time I need it, it wont be there. And we pay into it every paycheck by law. They keep raising the age you are able to withdraw from it as well already.

We also have a concept here called the Baby Boomer Generation. Lots of good old ****ing after WWII gave us a ballooned population and then it returned to normal.

think of it like this

|||
|||
||||||||||
||||||
||||
|||
||

that "big bar" generation is sucking up a lot of the money for the rest of us younger.
 
Oh.

Heh, actually we're facing the same problem, except that our population is waning even more. :/
 
No Limit said:
Pretty much everything you said in that post is an outright lie, and it's not the first time you've done it.

Social security is fine until 2037, it can pay out 100% of benefits until then. Then if absolutely nothing is done it will be able to pay out 75% of benefits until 2084. How old will you be in 2084?

The reason they want to slash social security now is because they spent the money they borrowed from social security on 2 wars, medicare advantage, and tax cuts for the rich. And now they don't want to pay us back our money.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I've heard that 1937 figure before, and it's a straight out misleading statement. There are NO ASSETS in the fund. They are "promises of repayment" in the form of government bonds (about $2.5 trillion)

HMMM, WHERE WILL THE MONEY TO PAY THAT COME FROM?

Either: massively printing money further devaluing the dollar
or: Defaulting on the money owed to social security.


Social security is permanently running a deficit now and there is no way to pay out past the year 2037 unless they make a miracle happen. I wont be able to draw from it by then, so my statement still stands- it'll be gone when I need it. To pay out in 2037 they'd have to start taking money from payroll tax.

If I contribute to a 401k or IRA or other private pension/retirement I should be exempt from being forced to contribute to this ponzi-pyramid scheme.
 
Exactly. They took money that didn't belong to them and used it to pay for such things as 2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and medicare advantage. Now that it's time to pay back that loan they don't want to pay back the money that belongs to us. They want to take the money you payed in to social security all these years that doesn't belong to them while at the same time arguing for tax cuts that will cost over 2 trillion dollars in the next decade.

The government has no right to tell the american people they won't pay us back our money. They are not allowed to default on other loans, what makes defaulting on loans from the social security trust fund ok?

Those loans need to be treated like any other loans and be payed back, you should be demanding it. Not making excuses. That money belongs to you, not to them.

Whether the money for those funds comes from raising taxes, raising the SS tax cap, or whatever other policies you might not like I don't care, the money needs to be paid back.
 
No Limit said:
The government has no right to tell the american people they won't pay us back our money. They are not allowed to default on other loans, what makes defaulting on loans from the social security trust fund ok?

Those loans need to be treated like any other loans and be payed back, you should be demanding it. Not making excuses. That money belongs to you, not to them.

Whether the money for those funds comes from raising taxes, raising the SS tax cap, or whatever other policies you might not like I don't care, the money needs to be paid back.
Click to expand...

Tax CUTS do not TAKE anything from surplus. In fact, they're known to increase REVENUE, so that helps the surplus.

The government has been raiding the surplus for the past 25 years.


:LOL:

It's not a matter of "not being allowed"

If they are unable to pay it back without destroying the dollar, we are screwed. It's not "they don't wanna" its "they cant without catastrophic consequences"

I see reality, and I recognize the government is probably going to end up defaulting on those IOU's. Sure, they may not be "allowed" but they will. And that's reality.

Raising taxes is not an efficient option- it'll create economic stagnation and actually lower the revenue brought into the government.
 
It's amazing to me how people will ignore simple elementary math and go with bullshit talking points from the right.

If I make $100 in profit this year if the government charges me 10% how much do they get? If they charge me 20% how much is that? Which is more.

The idea that jobs created by tax cuts offset the cost of those tax cuts is total fabrication. If you don't want to believe in common sense you can look at what the CBO has said about tax cuts costing us almost a trillion dollars in the next 10 years. Or numbers such as this one that show between 2001 and 2006 the tax cuts were responsible for 51% of the deficit:

Bush_deficit.jpg


Now, if you don't want to believe the numbers you can also go back and look at history. Taxes under Clinton were higher than they were under Bush. And I don't have to tell you that under Clinton our economy was much stronger:

lindenchart_1.jpg


And finally none of this addresses the question I asked you. Why can the government default on this loan when it can't on any others? How about instead of defaulting on this loan they default on some bonds sold to large corportations? Or how about on loans from China? Why does it have to be social security?
 
Sometimes you have to loosen the grip on the people's wallets to help the country. Give them more money to spend, and they'll spend more, which will revitalize the economy.
 
We already had tax cuts under Bush. And they didn't help.

Jeez.

Also I totally love making this thread.
 
Ridge said:
Sometimes you have to loosen the grip on the people's wallets to help the country. Give them more money to spend, and they'll spend more, which will revitalize the economy.
Click to expand...

How did that work out for ya in the last 10 years?
 
Ridge said:
Sometimes you have to loosen the grip on the people's wallets to help the country. Give them more money to spend, and they'll spend more, which will revitalize the economy.
Click to expand...

True, which is why tax cuts on the middle and working classes are a great way to stimulate the economy. Unemployment benefits also stimulate the economy by giving money to peope that need to spend it.

Tax cuts to billionares however doesn't stimulate the economy. They already have the money to buy luxury items and typically won't go out and buy another 7 yachts becuase of a tax cut.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-09-07-troop-deaths-iraq-army_N.htm

The U.S. military says a gunman wearing an Iraqi army uniform has killed two American soldiers in northern Iraq.

A military statement says the Americans were among a group of U.S. soldiers meeting with Iraqi security forces Tuesday at an Iraqi army compound near the city of Tuz Khormato, about 130 miles north of Baghdad.

They were the first U.S. military deaths since President Obama declared an end to combat operations on Aug. 31.
Click to expand...


Yup, just like Germany or Japan.
 
You must not have heard about the Germans that wore US uniforms and snuck through the lines in the Ardennes in winter 1944-45...

Operation Greif
 
Remind me Ridge, was that a planned operation sanctioned by their government or a lone insurgent?
 
Who says it was a lone insurgent? He got the uniform somehow...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
CptStern
Dying Vet's letter to GW Bush and Dick Cheney
Replies
10
Views
4K
KoreBolteR
KoreBolteR
Shyam
Abbas Submits Palestinian Request For Statehood To The UN.
Replies
37
Views
5K
15357
15357
David.Seth2
Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown
Replies
14
Views
1K
David.Seth2
David.Seth2
Warped
**** the Moon! We're going to Mars!
2
Replies
69
Views
3K
Warped
Warped
Back
Top