Military spending

[frigidweirdo]

Wow, you're really out to twist and turn, aren't you? C-in-C of the armed forces at the time of the invasion of Iraq was.......? Who?

Which changes absolutely nothing of the truth he gave.

Bush didn't do anything alone. The Congress gave approval of everything. Just like we have video of democrats taking tours of the CIA water boarding facilities. You people just lie non-stop to support whatever ignorance you are pushing in the moment.

I'm not lying at all. You're being very aggressive and seemingly unwilling to accept what I'm saying, don't push the bullshit on me.

My point is this. And I've said it a few times.

Bush and his team sent the CIA out to gain evidence of something, whether the evidence was real or partially real. We know this, it's been documented. No one else sent them out to do this in an unethical manner.
Then when the evidence was presented, both NSA and CIA evidence, Bush chose the evidence he knew to be tainted.
Then Bush twisted this evidence and then presented this evidence to people.

I'm not saying people were ignorant of what was going on in Iraq. What I'm saying is that Bush did something unethical. Other people did things and it wasn't necessarily great, but they worked within the system, Bush didn't.

You don't have to accept this, you can continue to get aggressive when people bring this up, you can see demons that aren't there, I don't care. This is a debate, if you choose to engage in the debate and act sensibly, then great, if not, you can just stop talking to me. Either way, your choice, but I won't accept this aggressive nonsense from you.

Ah yes. The Tin Foil Hat people.
That's a myth.

The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS: Michael Morell, Bill Harlow: 9781455585663: Amazon.com: Books

Former CIA members, have long said that they were not pressured.

The Robb-Silberman Commission also investigated the accusation of pressure on the CIA, and concluded none existed.

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Who said that? Nancy Pelosi in 1998.

You people are ignorant idiots.

By the way, how do you tin foil hat people, explain MI6 and all the other intelligence agencies around the world, that supported the claims? I suppose Bush secretly applied pressure on everyone everywhere, right? Childish intellects on the forums today.

I don't see the importance of anything you've said.

The CIA say they weren't pressurized. So what? They still carried out acts against the Geneva Convention. If people were allowed to get away with it in Abu Ghraib, why wouldn't they have been allowed to get away with it in Camp X-Ray?

Why was it allowed to happen? There's a difference between actively breaking the Geneva Convention and allowing it to happen, but they're both breaking the Geneva Convention. Simple as.

As for your argument that "You people are ignorant idiots", your argument is an insult. Are you serious? You're telling people they have low intellects and then insulting them. Hmmmm.....

No stupid.... my argument was the numerous investigations, and eye witness accounts, that contradict your asinine claim that Bush magically pressured everyone on the planet to fabricate intelligence in support of the Iraq war.

Me insulting you as stupid, is my interpretation of the evidence, the evidence of your post, that you people are in fact STUPID. That's what the claims of your post, indicate about you.

You want to argue about what happened in Abu Ghraib, fine. I agree with that assessment.

What's that go to do with the magic "Bush pushed intelligence agencies world wide, and for the decade before being president, to make up false evidence" theory that I was responding to? Sudden topic change, when your idiocy was pointed out?

You are dismissed. Grow up, and then come back.

So, your argument is basically to insult and put people down, then you demand I grow up?


Er.... bye.

 

[Andylusion]

No stupid.... my argument was the numerous investigations, and eye witness accounts, that contradict your asinine claim that Bush magically pressured everyone on the planet to fabricate intelligence in support of the Iraq war

He didn't and they didn't. Very few intelligence agencies thought Iraq had significant WMD. A few rusting artillery shells is not significant WMD. Trump was right, it was a big fat mistake and Bush was the fuckwit who dragged the US into it.

But US intelligence organisations were definitely pressured to 'find something on Iraq'. How that can still be denied is beyond me. Maybe it'll finally sink in when Trump puts Bush on trial. Oh happy day.

I don't think you know anything about the topic.

We destroyed thousands of shells of chemical weapons. Hans Blix, head of the UN inspection team, said:

"The discovery of a number of ... chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.... They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery … points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for"

You saying "a few shells" is both wrong, and irrelevant.

It's kind of like saying "Yes officer, I don't have a drivers license, but sir, this is a small Chevy Metro. It's just a small car, I'm illegally driving".

Saddam agreed to disarm. That means he should have zero shells. Moreover, he was supposed to show evidence of the destruction of the other shells, to prove he disarmed.

If Saddam had done this, nothing would have happened, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

Moreover, you are wrong. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with the assessment that Saddam was expanding his WMD programs.

 

[cnm]

your comparison only shows how little to grasp what was going on back then.

Oh, I grasp the paranoia the military industrial complex projected in order to maintain its ascendency. Who could not?

However, were even they so ridiculous as to posit waves of Russian landing craft motoring up the Hudson? I guess I shouldn't put it past them.

 

[cnm]

If Saddam had done this, nothing would have happened, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

If the US had abided by the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions we wouldn't be talking about it now, instead we discuss the crime against peace which Fuckwit43's illegal invasion of Iraq constitutes.

 

[Two Thumbs]

your comparison only shows how little to grasp what was going on back then.

Oh, I grasp the paranoia the military industrial complex projected in order to maintain its ascendency. Who could not?

However, were even they so ridiculous as to posit waves of Russian landing craft motoring up the Hudson? I guess I shouldn't put it past them.

Did you know that russia would speed thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of troops to the border of East Gr on a regular basis?
Did you know they helped the NK fight the war?
Did you know they helped the VC?
Did you know their bombers entered our airspace?
Did you know that their subs entered our waters off the coast?

Did you know that since these are true facts that calling it paranoia means you are truly ignorant of what went on and only believe what the leftist media tells you w/o question or thought?

 

[cnm]

Did you know that russia would speed thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of troops to the border of East Gr on a regular basis?

I bet they giggled every time.

 

[cnm]

Did you know their bombers entered our airspace?
Did you know that their subs entered our waters off the coast?

INVASION!!!!!


You are a whimpering paranoid ninny, a product of being force fed propaganda all your life.

 

[Andylusion]

If Saddam had done this, nothing would have happened, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

If the US had abided by the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions we wouldn't be talking about it now, instead we discuss the crime against peace which Fuckwit43's illegal invasion of Iraq constitutes.

The US did. The original resolution made it clear that disarming, was the requirement to avoid war. Japan and the UK, and several other countries concurred with this.

You people just make up crap, to support your myths.

 

[Andylusion]

Did you know their bombers entered our airspace?
Did you know that their subs entered our waters off the coast?

INVASION!!!!!


You are a whimpering paranoid ninny, a product of being force fed propaganda all your life.

Now you are displaying the intellectual capacity of a 5-year-old. You are as pathetic as your posts prove.

 

[cnm]

The US did.

Yeah right. That's why Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, said the invasion was illegal. You guys really should stop slurping your own propaganda, it will make you lose touch with reality.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.​

 

[cnm]

Japan and the UK, and several other countries concurred with this.

As though that makes it legal. You guys are ludicrous. Clever enough to make up lies and stupid enough to believe them.

 

[Andylusion]

Japan and the UK, and several other countries concurred with this.

As though that makes it legal. You guys are ludicrous. Clever enough to make up lies and stupid enough to believe them.

And what exactly was the lie? That Japan and the UK and other countries all believed it was legal?

If Kofi Annan was right, let's take it to trial. I'd be more than willing to see that argued in court.

Until then... it's just words. Back it up with actions. Oh wait, without the US, there would be no UN would there? Good luck.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Did you know their bombers entered our airspace?
Did you know that their subs entered our waters off the coast?

INVASION!!!!!


You are a whimpering paranoid ninny, a product of being force fed propaganda all your life.

I was on one of the subs that found one of their subs.

you're a leftist windbag that regurgitates what he hears w/o ever checking facts.

Four legs good
Two legs better

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I don't think Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen can take much more of that aid. Their cups runneth over.

I guess I made the mistake of thinking you were all smart enough to realize that I wasn't talking about countries with which we are actively militarily engaged but rather those where we spend billions every year merely stationing our soldiers to protect their borders.

Have you ever spent anytime on one of those boarders?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't think Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen can take much more of that aid. Their cups runneth over.

I guess I made the mistake of thinking you were all smart enough to realize that I wasn't talking about countries with which we are actively militarily engaged but rather those where we spend billions every year merely stationing our soldiers to protect their borders.

Have you ever spent anytime on one of those boarders?

I have spent time on our own borders and I see that we don't protect them as well as we do those of other countries.

We have no need to keep our military spread out across the world where at our expense we not only protect them but supplement their economies by allowing them to pay less for their own militaries

 

[Militants]

Over 400 billion € even after 2018.

Japan is strong military nation. Top ten in world.

Bigger Naval than Air Force.

UK are 20 first or 25 in world.

Germany will spend down after they sink down with soldiers.

20 billion euro or max 24 billion euro for Germany what I will.

144.000 reserves for Germany !!

Who other know in Super Power in money buisness what's.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't think Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen can take much more of that aid. Their cups runneth over.

I guess I made the mistake of thinking you were all smart enough to realize that I wasn't talking about countries with which we are actively militarily engaged but rather those where we spend billions every year merely stationing our soldiers to protect their borders.

Have you ever spent anytime on one of those boarders?

I have spent time on our own borders and I see that we don't protect them as well as we do those of other countries.

We have no need to keep our military spread out across the world where at our expense we not only protect them but supplement their economies by allowing them to pay less for their own militaries

Where exactly would you have us withdraw our troops?

I hear people say this a ton, and yet no seems to really want to be pinned down on it.

Germany? Ok, but we have treaties for troops stationed there. Kuwait? Alrighty, but we have treaties for those troops there as well. Do we just announce to everyone we're breaking our treaties? What effect will that have on the value of American support? Will anyone ever trust us again?

Not to mention, most of these places serve as important bases. Bases that would cost a ton to replace, if we needed to move back to those areas. It may cost a couple million a year to keep a few bases in Kuwait, but if we pull out, and then need to go back, we would have to spend billions to replace those bases we abandoned.

Are you saying we should pull out, and never intervene in those areas of the world, no matter what happens? That's an interesting position, if that's your take..... Not sure if that's a good plan or not.

And honestly, do you think that this will give Iran and Russia a view that they can do whatever they want, and we won't respond? Do you think that will not cause them to be more aggressive?

 

[AdvancingTime]

Looking at both the cost and all the talk about war it is important to on occasion revisit the subject of nuclear weapons. Like many people I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring.

The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or rational from attacking America, and for anyone else an arsenal of any size will be insufficient. The article below delves into the risk, size, and cost of these weapons.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-putting-issue-in.html

 

[Andylusion]

Looking at both the cost and all the talk about war it is important to on occasion revisit the subject of nuclear weapons. Like many people I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring.

The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or rational from attacking America, and for anyone else an arsenal of any size will be insufficient. The article below delves into the risk, size, and cost of these weapons.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-putting-issue-in.html

Of course ideally, everyone would disarm, and that would be that. Unfortunately, there is no chance of that happening.

Things invested, can not be un-invented. What knowledge gained in our information rich world, can not be un-known.

This is exactly why I have been a proponent of as much defensive spending as possible. There *WILL* be a nuclear war. It *WILL* happen. The question is, do we want to be able to shoot down incoming missiles or not?

I say yes.

But as to the size of our nuclear arms.... sure. We can slim it down. This is typical government though. Waste is inherent to government. You have a several dozen people in congress arguing aspects of military policy they have no knowledge of, and getting information from special interest groups on all sides, and looking to score political points "I am for a strong military! Look at my voting record".... and you end up with enough random weapons to destroy five planet earths.

And people actually WANT these nimrods running health care?

Of course the difference being that defense of the country is actually a constitutional duty of the government.

Now as to specifically why we have a large stock pile of nuclear weapons, I wager the answer is two things. One, I'm fairly certain about because it's true in almost everything the government does.... the cost of building 1 bomb is hu-massive. The cost to build the second bomb... next to nothing. Nearly all the cost is in the setup tooling and equipment capital costs. The cost of the individual materials, is almost nothing.

BTW, that's where the nut job crazy claims of $100 hammer, $800 toilet, come from. They take the total cost of the entire project, and divide it out by part. None of it is true.

The second I am far less certain about, because I seem to remember reading about this a long time ago, but I can't remember where, and I can't remember the specifics. But there was some reason that nuclear war heads had a high replacement rate, relative to convention weapons. I can't remember if it was because the material became less stable, or if the radio activity made the warhead less reliable, or what the issue was. But there was some reason why nuclear munitions had a short shelf life. And if I remember correctly (and I might not), they were placed in storage until they could be decommissioned, and dismantled. So I'm thinking a chunk of the warheads you have listed, are likely expired and in storage to be dismantled.

I could be wrong on that. Again, I can't remember where I read that. And it is also possible that my information is outdated. It's been years, possibly a decade ago when I read that.

 

[Militants]

I wondering this to:

Army - 60.000
Air Force - 33.000
Navy - 16.000

109.000 of total of German Bundeswehr.