Thread: US attack in Iraq (WAR Talk)

Originally posted by Liger86
fine, don't be my friend. I guess I was born in a dumpster!

I dont know what Bush thought but no one would like to see his or her dead in the war, it really sucks~

> Problematic numbers for USA.

What's problematic about it? That the war might last a whole month?

I don't understand the view that winning the war in more than 2 weeks is somehow a failure. Our progress has been amazing so far; I don't see how anything can really be called a failure so far.

>>Technology used in and developed for military products is usually the latest technology and extremely interesting for technicians, but the sad thing is that it is for the army.

Unlike you or probably most europeans with exception of UK the US takes great pride in it's military and appreciates developing the best stuff for it...

http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com/

This is software made by Chech's for the US military -- same ppl who made OperationFlashpoint...

you see the price tag on that bad boy....ouch

>>The amount of money the U.S. spends on "defence" is a disgrace.
i kind of agree on this, it's bad that we have so many domestic probelms and pour billions of dollars into the military, it pays off when we want to take military action but if we can afford it for the army how come not for welfare reform or other stuff like that?

>>The amount of money the U.S. spends on "defence" is a disgrace.

I don't think it's a disgrace - I think it is far more troubling that all of our states spend most of their money fielding TRAFFIC COPS that spend all their time ticketing and creating revenue for the state to field more trafic cops.

>>you see the price tag on that bad boy....ouch

it's only $149 but they expect you to buy 10's and 100's of copies.

I wonder what this world would be like if arms sales were illegal and free trade actually existed. If the companies and countries that sold WMD were responsible for the use they were put too.


The U.S., Europe and Japan spend US$350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world's poorest people.

According to Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program. These farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports.



Strange, that's about the same as the total of developed countries' foriegn aid.

Originally posted by dP munky
>>The amount of money the U.S. spends on "defence" is a disgrace.
i kind of agree on this, it's bad that we have so many domestic probelms and pour billions of dollars into the military, it pays off when we want to take military action but if we can afford it for the army how come not for welfare reform or other stuff like that?

While the US may spend billions on defense, it accounts for only about 16% of total expenditures. The majority (39%) goes to pensions and income security.

"While the US may spend billions on defense, it accounts for only about 16% of total expenditures. The majority (39%) goes to pensions and income security."

The US will spend 1.6 trillion dollars over the next 5 years on defence. 1.6 trillion dollars.... imagine what could be done with even a fraction of that money.

Hey Clyde, I'm not saying that it isn't alot of money, but it is estimated that the U.S. will budget 1.8 trillion dollars for human resources in the year 2008 alone. I am not trying to start a flame war, just wanted to point out that the defense department doesn't get as much of the budget as people are led to believe. I have no problem spending 1.8 trillion dollars for human resources, the government should spend most of it's money helping the people that it represents.

got my info from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/