Thread: USA defence spending

What a new and fresh viewpoint. Thank you, ping.

i mean, ok..iran is developing nuclear weapons, but whats the point?

Basically, Bush isn't willing to take the chance that weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of terrorists. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc, are all considered "rogue" countries which are more likely to have affiliations with terrorist organizations. In short, if a terrorist organization got ahold of WMDs, and successfully used it/them, it would make the total human loss incurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sept 11, etc look like a turkey shoot.

what about the prisoner abuse in iraq?

What about it? A few individuals made some poor choices...don't see how this is anybody's fault except the perpetrators.

i guess, he just wants to set up his rule in the middle east countries for the oil they have

I still fail to see why people believe this. When do we start taking their oil, and how do we do it? Oil production from Iraq has faltered, not increased, and we knew that would likely happen. The only oil we get from Iraq and the middle east is oil we purchase fairly, and we continue to buy it fairly even though it is at increasingly high rates. Granted, I can't say for sure it wasn't about oil, but a lot of people tend to believe this without giving realistic evidence that it's true, except that Iraq happens to have oil. They also happen to have gold, platinum, and a plethor of other precious resources that never get mentioned.

IMO the US should stop attacking other countries and try to curb the violence within US rather than doing what it is doing now..attacking others.

I strongly disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. I take a pro military stance and consider myself a conservative democrat, if that makes any sense. However, Bush believes he is doing the right thing by preventing these countries from developing weapons programs. It wasn't about oil or any of the Michael Moore leftist conspiracy theories. Sept 11 changed our world. I'm open to strong counter arguments.

sep 11 did change everyones world, i have relatives staying in the US and trust me we were as much worried about such attacks after 9/11 as people in the US were..but that does not qualify as an excuse to invade iraq..its a war against terrorism..and not against individual dictators like saddam hussien..i am not a fan of mr. hussien, but i personally think that a war never has any positive outcome..irrespective of who wins the war, both sides are losers..the US already has a nice military and cool weapons..so i guess, increasing the defense spendings does not help much..instead, spend money on development, and that wil benefit everyone. As for the WMDs, i dont think that any were found in iraq, and Hans blix, the person sent by i guess, the UN, also said that there were none in iraq, so i dont get the logic in attacking iraq..and im sure no one except Bush does..

First off I'd like to thank you for reading my opinions and carefully considering them without bashing or insulting me. English must be a second language, making this all the more difficult for you, so my hat goes off to you.


All of what you are asking was explained in my post above, so all I am going to do is quote myself.




To answer this question by you:

the UN, also said that there were none in iraq, so i dont get the logic in attacking iraq..and im sure no one except Bush does..

I quote myself from the post above:

Basically, Bush isn't willing to take the chance that weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of terrorists. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc, are all considered "rogue" countries which are more likely to have affiliations with terrorist organizations. In short, if a terrorist organization got ahold of WMDs, and successfully used it/them, it would make the total human loss incurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sept 11, etc look like a turkey shoot.

It really is that simple.

First off I'd like to thank you for reading my opinions and carefully considering them without bashing or insulting me. English must be a second language, making this all the more difficult for you, so my hat goes off to you.


All of what you are asking was explained in my post above, so all I am going to do is quote myself.

im perfectly fine with understanding english, thank you.
as far as the WMDs are concerned, they need to exist, you just cant go after someone and attack him with the thought in mind that the other person has WMDs..that is as if i say..."i think darkness is going to give me neg reps, so i feel that he is a threat, so i wanna kill him" lol, just kiddin, but thats what mr. bush's approach seems to be right now..

If the US did not want Sadam to have WMD the US should not have sold them to him. (see Reigle Senate Report on Gulf War Syndrome). Gulf war syndrome being chronic low level radiation poisoning from DU ammo.

Or the US should have stopped selling WMD to Sadam when he used them on Habjal in 1988.

One thing the US media fails to mention is these WMD have a short shelf life.
Sarin is two months.
Iraqi Anthrax about six months.
Any stock-piles of these WMD were long past any military use before the US attacked.

The US also uses banned WMD in Iraq (cluster and napalm bombs).

As to the POW abuse....

It was not a few individuals acting without orders.

Look at the people returned from Camp X-Ray. All say they were tortured.

Look at the POW abuse photos from Abu Garib. See the number of people in the photos.
Then remember that there are 1500+ images (plus video). No one can take that amount of photos in a high security prison anywhere without attracting attention.


The problem is the media. It trusted the Bush admin and never questioned the data (intel). In turn GWB never questioned the Iraqi defectors (Chalabi) because they were telling them what the admin wanted to hear.

CNN had two different news reports, one for the US and one for the rest of the world. The US version never mentioned the bad stuff........

If the US did not want Sadam to have WMD the US should not have sold them to him. (see Reigle Senate Report on Gulf War Syndrome). Gulf war syndrome being chronic low level radiation poisoning from DU ammo.

Assuming it was our fault that they had WMDs, are you saying that because it was our fault that they had them we should not have prevented Saddam from developing them, even if our commander in chief thought that by doing so would put the country at risk.

The US also uses banned WMD in Iraq (cluster and napalm bombs).

We also have a nuclear weapons. The only WMDs in Iraq right now are unexploded Tomahawk missiles from the initial invasion, lol.

As to the POW abuse....

It was not a few individuals acting without orders.

Look at the people returned from Camp X-Ray. All say they were tortured.

Something to support statements like these would help everybody out. If you read the news, no matter how much 'spin' is put on the article, it admits that all investigations have not been able to prove that the soldiers were under order.
This is what I mean:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html

The problem is the media. It trusted the Bush admin and never questioned the data (intel). In turn GWB never questioned the Iraqi defectors (Chalabi) because they were telling them what the admin wanted to hear.

CNN had two different news reports, one for the US and one for the rest of the world. The US version never mentioned the bad stuff........

Umm, I don't know where you live, but the media always has an anti-bush leftist spin on just about everything bush says or does in the united states.

Novacain I think your arguments weren't as strong as PINGs. The reason being, PING stuck soley with opinions or relied on well-known facts, as did I (for the most part, at least I tried to). You, on the other hand, tend to delve deeper and give what seems to be anecdotal proof to support your viewpoints...it just makes things less cohesive. You may be somewhat right with some of the things you've stated, but unless you can at least give a link from a reputable source when you talk about less-known facts, a lot of what you say just seems invalid to me.

As an aside, you did tell me to see at least one piece of external information, is this what you were referring to by the Reigle report on Gulf War Syndrome? And have you actually read the whole thing? Perhaps you should send a link of exactly what you want me to read, so I'm sure it's what you are referring to.
http://members.aol.com/vetcenter/reigle.htm

Read these;

Reigle report
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html

FOX propaganda
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._03_Report.pdf

FOX, the news does not have to be the truth, even when our viewers lives are at stake
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/news/fox.htm

Trust the International Red Cross on POW abuse?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...&SearchMax=100

Or MSNBC?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

"The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war."

Why is it that Dan Rather was fired for an incorrect story (against GWB in which the facts were correct but the docs forged) but no one has been fired for claiming that Iraq had WMD, tried to buy uranium from Niger ect (in which the facts were incorrect)?

Thanks for posting sources Novacain, I'll try looking into those. As an aside.

EDIT:

I've read a substantial portion of the PIPA pdf. Seems interesting, and seems like a reputable source. I don't believe I ever had the mentioned misconceptions about the war, and I actually just started watching FOX in part because I think it's more fair than other news organizations.

We didn't go after North Korea because we went after Iraq.

People avoiding questions is universal.

Watch the O'Reilly show. Sure, he's an old bag who falls right of center, and yes he states his opinions quite clearly, but if you watch you'll find he forces the people he is interviewing to answer the questions instead of avoiding them. That's why I like his show more than any other talk show. If he disagrees, he'll tell you, but it's a no-spin zone.

The thing I don't like about the anti-Bush people is that they come up with ample amount of criticism without offering better alternatives. I don't think a liberal president is what this country needs right now, and I actually wish I hadn't voted for Kerry. Yes, I was against the Iraq war, but I actually think Bush is the President this country needs right now.

>>Pain and suffering doesn't become torture until lasting harm is done
>>but if mildly harming a criminal saves human life, then why shouldn't we do so? It's self-defence.
I happen to disagree with that definition of torture (just ask any little brother, hah), but in any case - whose human lives are being saved here? I haven't read the articles myself, but it doesn't seem logical that torturing someone (or just dunking them in water, keeping them awake for long periods of time etc) will benefit anybody in any way. Unless, I guess, you're trying to get info from them - but someone who's half dead from exhaustion won't give entirely coherent answers either. And, IMO, it'll just tick off the opponents and incite them to kill even more of your people.