Originally Posted by The12lber
LOL, whatever kid. You assume you can run the government better, that says enough in itself. YOU DONT KNOW **** ABOUT RUNNING A COUNTRY. YOU PROBABLY ARENT EVEN OUT OF HIGHSCHOOL YET. But I can't be mad at you, everyone goes through a phase where they think they know everything. You'll grow out of it.
TIP: Try to get laid, it'll work wonders.
IA Rules doesn't allow these images in sigs
- IA Mgmt
Oh, my mistake. I don't know **** about mistakes we've made in foreign or domestic policy past and present because you don't like me. You've made your point well.
Do you really think you are some sort of govt expert? Did you graduate from Princeton, Standford, Harvard, etc? Then what makes you think you know more than people who did and have worked in politics ever since?
IA Rules doesn't allow these images in sigs
- IA Mgmt
Lets start with some very basic stuff here that ties into a common theme throughout the last 60 years of United States policy making.
United States Defense Spending compared to other nations.
Why is our defense spending so tremendously large? In absolute terms/dollars, as a percentage of world spending, and the disparity between us and our nearest rivals?
The Military Industrial Complex really became a major player in making policy in the United States after WWII. Throughout the Cold War, even considering the "Soviet Threat", defense spending was tremendously high. There is no argument that the Soviet nuclear ballistic missile forces on land and at sea did not pose a tremendous threat to the United States.
However, the vast majority of defense spending in the United States was spent on conventional forces. Throughout the Cold War, our spending consistently outstripped the Soviets. Was a high level of defense spending necessary in this environment, yes, but did politicians also exploit the situation to a great degree for the benefit of their financers? Absolutely- the Western Bloc's conventional forces were impressive but no match for NATO, yet defense spending was still extravagantly high- defense contractors, the military and government have incredibly close ties and any Pol Sci major knows this.
A tremendous boon to the Military Industrial Complex in the already lucrative Cold War environment was the Vietnam war. While the United States armed forces had been in the conflict as "advisers" for some time, causus belli for full scale U.S. involvement was the Tonkin Gulf incident which has been outed by a number of intelligence reports as completely fabricated. Who's interests would our involvement in the Indochina conflict service? The military industrial complex.
While this is really because of a convergence of two interests, we'll focus on just this one facet for now. This is pretty similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Former cabinet members have stated that from the first day of Bush's administration he was looking for ways to facilitate regime change in Iraq. Intelligence that contradicted the notion that Iraq was producing/possessed Chemical and Biological weapons or the fact that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was long dead was supressed in the lead up to the war. Allegations that Sadam was tied to 9/11/Al Qaeda were and still are transparently fallacious as it is well known that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam had a long standing animosity and that both had fundamentally contrary operative philosophical beliefs (also, there's the part where no actual intelligence supports this assertion made my the Bush before the war).
Well, now that we've determined that the Gulf War #2: The Sequel was built on lies (regardless of your political persuasion, this much has been obvious for years and made more so by our leaky government providing the press with intelligence supporting this), who's interests does a war in Iraq serve? The military industrial complex, this time including a large number of private military companies (mercenaries). Curiously, this scenario is almost exactly what is described in a paper called "Project for a New American Century", authored by Neo-Conservative interest group, which argues that American denial of petroleum to China will decelerate their growth as a nation/future global economic and military power and prolong American dominance in the economic and military arenas.
I could also go on about how America's policies in the past and the present are the origin of a tremendous portion of instability in the middle east.
Example One, American support of the Shah of Iran.
We overthrew Iran's previous Government and put this ******* back in power. He was a despot who ruled Iran with an iron fist, and our support of him was very obvious to the Iranian people (they still fly F-14s that we gave him even). When everything finally went to hell and the people overthrew him, who was public enemy #1 all of the sudden? (and who had created a situation that allowed for a radical islamic revolution to occur in the first place?). The United States of America.
Example Two: U.S. support of oppressive Saudi Royal family.
I'm not even going to bother explaining this. Look at the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers.
But obviously, I couldn't know any of this because you know so much about me, you know what I know and my entire background, what I do and don't know and whether apparently also whether or not I've gone zoom zoom in anyone's boom boom.
The irony, you accused me of being uneducated but in doing so you only demonstrated that you yourself are uninformed and petty. I suppose its a good thing you did so during my mind numbingly boring english class so I could give you an appropriate reply.
Look at that, I actually supported my initial statement with some facts and a basic history instead of just saying
"LOLOL UR WRONG AND YOU R IN HIGHSCHOOL AND DIDNT GO TO PRINCETON AND PS BECUZ I DONT AGREE WITH U U SHOULD GET SOME POOTAY TANG"
****ing idiot.
Last edited by The12lber; 03-03-2008 at 03:50 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote