The WORST thing that could happen to BUSH...
-
Paul Selormey wrote: ...or was Osama bin Laden right :wtf::mad:You are all screwed up. You think a guy who smashes airplanes into buildings might be right? Maybe you should go get a sling shot and head over to Baghdad. Paul Selormey wrote: Pray for the people of Iraq, they have right to live too Yeah they do, and after this is all over there won't be a madman gassing them, executing them, etc, etc, etc. The estimates are that Saddaam has killed over 1,000,000 Muslims since he came to power. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: You are all screwed up. You think a guy who smashes airplanes into buildings might be right? Oh! how intelligent? worse thing is being planned for Iraq. Doug Goulden wrote: The estimates are that Saddaam has killed over 1,000,000 Muslims since he came to power. ...and how many have Americans killed so far? Doug Goulden wrote: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that? Of course, this is the time to celebrate. You big boss is about to execute one of your patented killing intellectual property. Best regards, Paul. May the Lord protect the innocent souls of Iraq about to be murdered.
-
Saddam Hussein has 48 hours to leave the country with his family. What if...
... he would decide to so and leave the command to the UNO to install a temporary gouvernement and democratic elections?
This would be the worst thing that could happen to president Bush and the US. Why? - He would not have to right to intrude into the Iraq, the US-army would have to go back home. - Iraq would keep his weapons and continue hiding them, supposed they really have some, which is not proved at all. - Those US-companies which prepare themselves to get down to Iraq after the war to build up the country and make a lot of money would loose those really interesting jobs. - Bush would have to get back to his office to think it over again and find another way to get to the oil reserves in Iraq. ... it seems like the US need this war to get its economy rolling again. Am I dreaming or is the world going up side down?Bush wants Saddam out. period. If he doesn't have to send troops into Iraq to do it, all the better. The US has been arguing with nations since early 90's about doing this. Clinton wanted to go in too, but didn't because he was afraid of losing respect in the global community. Well, actually he did bomb for 4 days in '98, well that's different right... If Saddam leaves, US goes in to help restructure, along with many other countries. Without outside help the country will fall into anarchy. People who have no experience in managing a country will find it a difficult task to do without outside help, so I imagine the new government will welcome some advice. Whether or not Iraq keeps weapons once Saddam influence is gone, is almost irrelevant. The companies with bids to help in rebuilding will still have opportunities. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Actually, it requires another $20,000,000 to be spent. A military plane itself is useless to the economy (ie. doesn't produce anything), building one, however is great. Sending troops overseas does hurt though. 250,000 people are not spending money at home, not to mention the increase in pay due to active duty. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Actually, it requires another $20,000,000 to be spent. A military plane itself is useless to the economy (ie. doesn't produce anything), building one, however is great. Sending troops overseas does hurt though. 250,000 people are not spending money at home, not to mention the increase in pay due to active duty. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
brianwelsch wrote: building one, however is great Not entirely true. The aircraft itself, once produced does not add anything to the economy. Compared, say, to a fleet of trucks which transport goods. The trucks continue to produce for the economy once built, so the overall impact on the economy is much greater for a fleet of trucks than for a war plane. War may be good for a very limited sector of the economy, but overall the production of military weaponry and paying the troops places a drag on any economy. Economically, the US would be much better off if we downsized our military. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
Doug Goulden wrote: You are all screwed up. You think a guy who smashes airplanes into buildings might be right? Oh! how intelligent? worse thing is being planned for Iraq. Doug Goulden wrote: The estimates are that Saddaam has killed over 1,000,000 Muslims since he came to power. ...and how many have Americans killed so far? Doug Goulden wrote: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that? Of course, this is the time to celebrate. You big boss is about to execute one of your patented killing intellectual property. Best regards, Paul. May the Lord protect the innocent souls of Iraq about to be murdered.
-
brianwelsch wrote: building one, however is great Not entirely true. The aircraft itself, once produced does not add anything to the economy. Compared, say, to a fleet of trucks which transport goods. The trucks continue to produce for the economy once built, so the overall impact on the economy is much greater for a fleet of trucks than for a war plane. War may be good for a very limited sector of the economy, but overall the production of military weaponry and paying the troops places a drag on any economy. Economically, the US would be much better off if we downsized our military. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote: The aircraft itself, once produced does not add anything to the economy Umm, that's what I was saying... :confused: A military plane itself is useless to the economy (ie. doesn't produce anything), I just saying that building a plane causes a need for parts and labor which is beneficial, I wasn't getting into optimum use of resources. ;) BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
You assume that the losses will be replaced. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Considering the current mood of the US administration it would be replaced by atleast 5 :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
My Business Grad friend once told me business is good for war. Go figure. Notorious SMC
The difference between the almost-right word & the right word is a really large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the Lightning Mark Twain
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please Mark Twain34. War is good for business. 35. Peace is good for business. 202. The justification of profit is profit. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
Oh! how intelligent? http://www.goenglish.com/ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.asp[^] Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Informative :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
brianwelsch wrote: building one, however is great Not entirely true. The aircraft itself, once produced does not add anything to the economy. Compared, say, to a fleet of trucks which transport goods. The trucks continue to produce for the economy once built, so the overall impact on the economy is much greater for a fleet of trucks than for a war plane. War may be good for a very limited sector of the economy, but overall the production of military weaponry and paying the troops places a drag on any economy. Economically, the US would be much better off if we downsized our military. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote: War may be good for a very limited sector of the economy An sector which would not exist without war. So it is serving only itself. X|
Off to in ~87 days
-
Saddam Hussein has 48 hours to leave the country with his family. What if...
... he would decide to so and leave the command to the UNO to install a temporary gouvernement and democratic elections?
This would be the worst thing that could happen to president Bush and the US. Why? - He would not have to right to intrude into the Iraq, the US-army would have to go back home. - Iraq would keep his weapons and continue hiding them, supposed they really have some, which is not proved at all. - Those US-companies which prepare themselves to get down to Iraq after the war to build up the country and make a lot of money would loose those really interesting jobs. - Bush would have to get back to his office to think it over again and find another way to get to the oil reserves in Iraq. ... it seems like the US need this war to get its economy rolling again. Am I dreaming or is the world going up side down? -
brianwelsch wrote: building one, however is great Not entirely true. The aircraft itself, once produced does not add anything to the economy. Compared, say, to a fleet of trucks which transport goods. The trucks continue to produce for the economy once built, so the overall impact on the economy is much greater for a fleet of trucks than for a war plane. War may be good for a very limited sector of the economy, but overall the production of military weaponry and paying the troops places a drag on any economy. Economically, the US would be much better off if we downsized our military. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote: The aircraft itself, once produced does not add anything to the economy. So aircraft maintenance, fuel consumption and pilot salary don't add to the economy? All of these things create wealth. The gov't has to buy parts and fuel from someone which gives them income and paying a pilot certainly gives him more buying power. Economics is not that simple.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
The revival of the economy is about spending. A war increases government spending causing a lot of short-term jobs, i guess. A plane going down needs a new one to be built and the defense contractors have more work. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Danoo wrote: ... it seems like the US need this war to get its economy rolling again. Innocents are about to loose their lives... Danoo wrote: Am I dreaming or is the world going up side down? Hello, Russians here put pressure on Putin to act to save the poor people of Iraq. Seems America/British/Spain decide to go illegal, there is no need to respect so-called internalional laws. Danoo wrote: Am I dreaming or is the world going up side down? ...or was Osama bin Laden right? Best regards, Paul. Pray for the people of Iraq, they have right to live too.
It's funny. There's still so many people in the world that think Bush is specifically out to kill the Iraqi people. It's the people that hate Bush and the US to begin with I guess. No matter how loud the US shouts that it's about the regime of Saddam, they still won't hear. They slap their hands over their ears and go "Lalalalalala! It's all about oil! lalalalalala! Bush wants to kill innocent people. lalalalalala! I can't hear you!" I suppose it sucks to admit you're wrong. It's better to look stupid than to be wrong for some people.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
-
Actually, it requires another $20,000,000 to be spent. A military plane itself is useless to the economy (ie. doesn't produce anything), building one, however is great. Sending troops overseas does hurt though. 250,000 people are not spending money at home, not to mention the increase in pay due to active duty. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
brianwelsch wrote: Sending troops overseas does hurt though. 250,000 people are not spending money at home, not to mention the increase in pay due to active duty. That's not necessarily true. One of my friends in the military is ordering stuff on eBay and having it sent to his house for when he gets back. He's definitely an eBay addict.
-
Trollslayer wrote: a $20,000,000 aircraft shot down is scrap at best. Thats a lot of money taken out of the economy. It was manufactured in the first place to kill innocent souls, it might have completed its mission. Best regards, Paul. May the Almighty God protect the innocent souls in Iraq.
Paul Selormey wrote: It was manufactured in the first place to kill innocent souls, The soul cannot be killed, maybe you meant innocent people? Anyway, it's all going to end soon... Iraq will be liberated and no matter how things go, the Iraqi people will be much better without Saddam and his regime. Nobody said that a tooth extraction was painless...
There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: War may be good for a very limited sector of the economy An sector which would not exist without war. So it is serving only itself. X|
Off to in ~87 days
Andreas Saurwein wrote: An sector which would not exist without war. Not necessarilly. I think most military suppliers also produce civilian products.
There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
It's funny. There's still so many people in the world that think Bush is specifically out to kill the Iraqi people. It's the people that hate Bush and the US to begin with I guess. No matter how loud the US shouts that it's about the regime of Saddam, they still won't hear. They slap their hands over their ears and go "Lalalalalala! It's all about oil! lalalalalala! Bush wants to kill innocent people. lalalalalala! I can't hear you!" I suppose it sucks to admit you're wrong. It's better to look stupid than to be wrong for some people.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
Kevnar wrote: I suppose it sucks to admit you're wrong. I think what sucks is that USA thinking it is the only nation which knows better, and use of force is the only way to solve a problem. I think we have passed that age. Kevnar wrote: It's better to look stupid than to be wrong for some people. Make it both, I will prefer to be stupid and wrong in this case where innocent people who might have struggled to reach some stage in their life to die just because a strong nation is happily raining bullets on them. If supporting America is the only way to be correct, please let me wrong. Best regards, Paul. May the Lord protect the innocent people of Iraq about to be murdered.
-
Paul Selormey wrote: It was manufactured in the first place to kill innocent souls, The soul cannot be killed, maybe you meant innocent people? Anyway, it's all going to end soon... Iraq will be liberated and no matter how things go, the Iraqi people will be much better without Saddam and his regime. Nobody said that a tooth extraction was painless...
There are only 10 kind of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Iraq will be liberated and no matter how things go, the Iraqi people will be much better without Saddam and his regime. May be you wish to say no matter how many Iraqi people die... Eddie Velasquez wrote: Nobody said that a tooth extraction was painless... Going to a dentist is a choice in the first place. Best regards, Paul. May the Lord protect the innocent souls in Iraq.
-
Kevnar wrote: I suppose it sucks to admit you're wrong. I think what sucks is that USA thinking it is the only nation which knows better, and use of force is the only way to solve a problem. I think we have passed that age. Kevnar wrote: It's better to look stupid than to be wrong for some people. Make it both, I will prefer to be stupid and wrong in this case where innocent people who might have struggled to reach some stage in their life to die just because a strong nation is happily raining bullets on them. If supporting America is the only way to be correct, please let me wrong. Best regards, Paul. May the Lord protect the innocent people of Iraq about to be murdered.
Paul Selormey wrote: die just because a strong nation is happily raining bullets on them You're still operating under this false assumption that the US is haphazardly going to rain bullets randomly down on innocent people. I don't know where you get this notion but it's as stupid as it is false. Even if they had absolutely no regard for human life, which they do, it's still stupid to do this because weapons cost money. They will select targets carefully and the only way civilians will get killed is if Saddam himself puts them in harms way on purpose, which he has been known to do in the past. That does not make it the US's fault then. Anyone who says so is simply speaking out of blind hatred of the US. If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you go down there and serve as a human sheild yourself? I'm sure Saddam would be grateful for the help. Then once the US gives up and turns back, he can go back to his regime of systematic torture and dehumanization of these Iraqi civilians you claim to love so much.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side