Jump to content

List of things the US should spend on rather than bombing Iraq.


arnold layne

Recommended Posts

The U.S. desperately needs an overhaul in its infrastructure. New roads, bridges. New internet broadband pipelines; smart electrical grids. High-speed forms of transportation (whether it be train or something akin to Elon Musk's hyperloop concept).

yea, the first trillion just wasn't enough.

This President and this congress is not going to spend money wisely, and thats not saying the next one will either.

but for now the military complex is as important as anything else that may actually see a dollar.

There is a takeover of a very resourceful region in the middle east by some very bad characters

hell bent on bringing the fight here again going full bore. I realize living North of the border may not ring the same urgency, respectfully understood.

some of us would like to see our President get out in front of this, somehow.

Edited by shades
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fatah needs to be more corrupt so they can fuck over Hamas. At least they are more realistic.


But in terms of things to spend money on, spending it on military contracts keeps the military strong and creates jobs and strengthens economy. A strong military is the key to being able to borrow money so we can live good lives.

To a point.

In the classic book on the history of geo-politics and great powers, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy argues that it is the economic strength that gives rise to a powerful military. However, the great power reaches a tipping point where economic resources are diverted away from infrastructure and investment and funnelled into an ever growing military. In an effort to protect its economic advantages, great economic powers often over-extend and prioritize their military to the detriment of their own economy. Kennedy uses a lot of empirical evidence, facts and figures, and historical examples to prove his point. Many thought Kennedy's argument was proven wrong by the U.S.'s return to economic prominence in the mid to late 1990s, but he seems to have found validation in events of the last decade or so.

It's a long book, about 900 pages, but definitely worth the read if you're into this kind of thing.

I don't think we have great economic power, it's an illusion because it's all borrowed money. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying maybe there's no turning back or no way out. Maybe it's the fall of the american empire. but it works up to a point as long as the people can accept less prosperous times sometimes.

You'd guess though as long as you fail to make things and have a real economy you're heading for a fall, but who knows maybe it can last in stasis with a solid military to create some wealth that filters down. The gov can pay for people in civil services, schools, hospitals pretty well and that's a educated middle class. Then manufacturing used to provide a good life for the rest, with that gone and only borrowed money left to fund things... But the good news is we can keep borrowing. But how for how long and can you ever turn it into something else.

Where do we go now??!!!

But that's the point Kennedy makes in his book. Up until the mid to late 70s, American still made stuff. But as the "real" economy started to fade (where wealth increasingly concentrats itself within the finance industry while everyone else works in retail/service industries), the U.S. did not return to infrastructure building unless it had military applications.

The expansion of the military in the 1990s and again in the 2000s did not correspond with growing economic strength. The trillions the U.S. plundered in a supposed arms race with the Soviets in the 80s and the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent (or rather not spent) on nation building at home.

The U.S. military is nothing more than a jobs program - there's no mistaking that. But when military expenditures takes on more and more as a percentage of a nation's economic output, it's unsustainable. Eventually, the taps will dry up and the money needed to run the military will be gone. This has happened to every great power that has acted as hegemon or dominant power within the regional or international system. Japan, China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the British Empire, the Hapsburg Empire - all have waned as a result of forsaking their economic advantages to bolster their military capabilities and reach. The maxim is basically this, you can't overcome economic weakness through military strength. Relying on a superior military to achieve geo-political objectives will only last for so long.

Unless the U.S. can usher in a new economic boom, America will follow many of the other great powers that preceded it. Some weathered the transition well (Britain, France) while others saw a drastic drop in their global clout (Spain, Italy/Rome).

I think we agree. The military is really just a way to borrow money. It's not sustainable, but what is? Also what other choice is there?

To begin with, not spend trillions in other countries. Last time I checked, Detroit looks more bombed out than Baghdad (in fairness, I actually haven't been to Baghdad).

The U.S. desperately needs an overhaul in its infrastructure. New roads, bridges. New internet broadband pipelines; smart electrical grids. High-speed forms of transportation (whether it be train or something akin to Elon Musk's hyperloop concept).

And how about having a real industrial policy. In the late 1940s through the mid 1970s, the U.S. spent a much higher percentage of it's GDP on scientific research that has provided many of the technological advances we have today (microwave, Internet, medical technologies, etc.). Funding and grants had far less restrictions relating to military applications as they do today. There was a time when the U.S.'s industrial policy wasn't so tightly tied to its military.

Private industry is great, but it tends to fund innovations that have quicker returns. The role of government in respect to industrial policy is to fund in areas that are long-term. You'll hear conservatives denounce this concept, that the government is thus picking winners and losers. But such comments are ignorant of how integral the U.S. government was in funding industrial advances following WW2.

It seems the US has given up on being the leader. We are more content with selling scrap metal to China and using up fossil fuels. It's Chinese Century now. Pax-China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. desperately needs an overhaul in its infrastructure. New roads, bridges. New internet broadband pipelines; smart electrical grids. High-speed forms of transportation (whether it be train or something akin to Elon Musk's hyperloop concept).

yea, the first trillion just wasn't enough.

This President and this congress is not going to spend money wisely, and thats not saying the next one will either.

but for now the military complex is as important as anything else that may actually see a dollar.

There is a takeover of a very resourceful region in the middle east by some very bad characters

hell bent on bringing the fight here again going full bore. I realize living North of the border may not ring the same urgency, respectfully understood.

some of us would like to see our President get out in front of this, somehow.

Relative to the size of the U.S. economy, no, a $1 trillion infusion was not enough. But since I know you're one for facts and figure Shades, I don't think I have to tell you that one-third of Obama's stimulus plan in 2009 was in the form of tax-cuts; two-thirds came in the form of spending. So you have $3 trillion sucked out of the economy in the matter of a few short months, and you expect $1 trillion to fill the hole? And that's just considering hard liquidity, never mind the $40-$50 trillion loss of equity that hit the economy as a result of plummeting real-estate values.

It's interesting that you believe government can't spend money wisely, but somehow think that the military is somehow different. They generals and pentagon bureaucrats are somehow more adept to spending money wisely. That assessment doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny when one considers the $1 trillion overruns on the F-35 fighter jet. Or how do we square your conclusion that the military [industrial] complex is any better with red-tape and cronyism when we consider the space-rocket program, which awarded a multi-billion dollar contract to ULA (a joint partnership between Boeing and Lockheed), despite Elon Musk's Space X being able to provide reusable rockets for a fraction of the cost. Those are just two examples where negligence, cronyism, and red-tape have cost the American tax payers billions (in some cases, over a trillion dollars), and yet somehow you still see the military as a practical means for government spending.

And while Canada may not have been attacked directly in 9/11 (though there were many Canadians in the World Trade Centre), we have our own problems with terrorists and plots to kill Canadian citizens. In fact, we had a very large terrorist plot foiled just last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot. So I don't think Canadians are any less reticent to fight those who would use violent means to make a statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fatah needs to be more corrupt so they can fuck over Hamas. At least they are more realistic.

To begin with, not spend trillions in other countries. Last time I checked, Detroit looks more bombed out than Baghdad (in fairness, I actually haven't been to Baghdad).

The U.S. desperately needs an overhaul in its infrastructure. New roads, bridges. New internet broadband pipelines; smart electrical grids. High-speed forms of transportation (whether it be train or something akin to Elon Musk's hyperloop concept).

And how about having a real industrial policy. In the late 1940s through the mid 1970s, the U.S. spent a much higher percentage of it's GDP on scientific research that has provided many of the technological advances we have today (microwave, Internet, medical technologies, etc.). Funding and grants had far less restrictions relating to military applications as they do today. There was a time when the U.S.'s industrial policy wasn't so tightly tied to its military.

Private industry is great, but it tends to fund innovations that have quicker returns. The role of government in respect to industrial policy is to fund in areas that are long-term. You'll hear conservatives denounce this concept, that the government is thus picking winners and losers. But such comments are ignorant of how integral the U.S. government was in funding industrial advances following WW2.

It seems the US has given up on being the leader. We are more content with selling scrap metal to China and using up fossil fuels. It's Chinese Century now. Pax-China.

I'm not sure if I'm in agreement that this is China's century just yet. China has it's own problems, with many smart people expecting its economy to crash in the next couple of years. That doesn't mean it will, but there are some serious structural problems to its economy that it will have problems negotiating in the next few years.

Also keep in mind that inequality is growing in China (in fact, the wealth gap is now bigger in China than in the U.S.). One of the most important developments of America's rise to global hegemony in the last century was a dramatic drop in its gini-coefficient. Unless China is able to broaden its wealth among more of its citizens, I have a hard time seeing how the country follows a similar trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the benefit of China's economy tanking for the US?

Not a whole lot. Both economies are very inter-dependent.

However, the U.S. could weather a collapse in the Chinese economy. I'm not sure if China is in the same position if the U.S. were to collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in terms of things to spend money on, spending it on military contracts keeps the military strong and creates jobs and strengthens economy. A strong military is the key to being able to borrow money so we can live good lives.

To a point.

In the classic book on the history of geo-politics and great powers, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy argues that it is the economic strength that gives rise to a powerful military. However, the great power reaches a tipping point where economic resources are diverted away from infrastructure and investment and funnelled into an ever growing military. In an effort to protect its economic advantages, great economic powers often over-extend and prioritize their military to the detriment of their own economy. Kennedy uses a lot of empirical evidence, facts and figures, and historical examples to prove his point. Many thought Kennedy's argument was proven wrong by the U.S.'s return to economic prominence in the mid to late 1990s, but he seems to have found validation in events of the last decade or so.

It's a long book, about 900 pages, but definitely worth the read if you're into this kind of thing.

I don't think we have great economic power, it's an illusion because it's all borrowed money. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying maybe there's no turning back or no way out. Maybe it's the fall of the american empire. but it works up to a point as long as the people can accept less prosperous times sometimes.

You'd guess though as long as you fail to make things and have a real economy you're heading for a fall, but who knows maybe it can last in stasis with a solid military to create some wealth that filters down. The gov can pay for people in civil services, schools, hospitals pretty well and that's a educated middle class. Then manufacturing used to provide a good life for the rest, with that gone and only borrowed money left to fund things... But the good news is we can keep borrowing. But how for how long and can you ever turn it into something else.

Where do we go now??!!!

But that's the point Kennedy makes in his book. Up until the mid to late 70s, American still made stuff. But as the "real" economy started to fade (where wealth increasingly concentrats itself within the finance industry while everyone else works in retail/service industries), the U.S. did not return to infrastructure building unless it had military applications.

The expansion of the military in the 1990s and again in the 2000s did not correspond with growing economic strength. The trillions the U.S. plundered in a supposed arms race with the Soviets in the 80s and the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent (or rather not spent) on nation building at home.

The U.S. military is nothing more than a jobs program - there's no mistaking that. But when military expenditures takes on more and more as a percentage of a nation's economic output, it's unsustainable. Eventually, the taps will dry up and the money needed to run the military will be gone. This has happened to every great power that has acted as hegemon or dominant power within the regional or international system. Japan, China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the British Empire, the Hapsburg Empire - all have waned as a result of forsaking their economic advantages to bolster their military capabilities and reach. The maxim is basically this, you can't overcome economic weakness through military strength. Relying on a superior military to achieve geo-political objectives will only last for so long.

Unless the U.S. can usher in a new economic boom, America will follow many of the other great powers that preceded it. Some weathered the transition well (Britain, France) while others saw a drastic drop in their global clout (Spain, Italy/Rome).

I think we agree. The military is really just a way to borrow money. It's not sustainable, but what is? Also what other choice is there?

To begin with, not spend trillions in other countries. Last time I checked, Detroit looks more bombed out than Baghdad (in fairness, I actually haven't been to Baghdad).

The U.S. desperately needs an overhaul in its infrastructure. New roads, bridges. New internet broadband pipelines; smart electrical grids. High-speed forms of transportation (whether it be train or something akin to Elon Musk's hyperloop concept).

And how about having a real industrial policy. In the late 1940s through the mid 1970s, the U.S. spent a much higher percentage of it's GDP on scientific research that has provided many of the technological advances we have today (microwave, Internet, medical technologies, etc.). Funding and grants had far less restrictions relating to military applications as they do today. There was a time when the U.S.'s industrial policy wasn't so tightly tied to its military.

Private industry is great, but it tends to fund innovations that have quicker returns. The role of government in respect to industrial policy is to fund in areas that are long-term. You'll hear conservatives denounce this concept, that the government is thus picking winners and losers. But such comments are ignorant of how integral the U.S. government was in funding industrial advances following WW2.

It's true the industrial age ground to a halt. All the problems got solved, all the roads built etc. The industrialists are just sitting on piles of cash now.I think it is these dynasties, plutocrats maybe. The Kuznet curve. Those industrialists got rich, those landowners who were sitting on oil in Texas etc. The gov doesn't own the land. Once they get rich they tend to want to hold on to their fortunes. And if that means killing the growth and finding ways to maintain their fortunes they do it. That's why they get into politics, to control and make sure they don't get the money taken from them. But America is more of a bun fight than most countries, the system is flexible enough so random poor people bust out of the ghetto. If you notice the new billionaires Gates and Jobs were operating inside the plutocrats system. It's all border line entertainment/business, soft stuff really, world changing maybe but it's not creating jobs for US people. Microsoft built on slaves in the third world. Jobs the same. These guys didn't build America they just aided it's downfall. Maybe it's just the way it goes. All empires fall. People aren't that great, Bush or whoever will go down with the ship trying to protect their wealth. They'll invest/hide their money but they aren't going get involved in really making stuff as it's not a great business, it's not safe. Maybe progress is finite or there was a peak but we've solved cars, houses. It's more like an energy crisis now. How do we sustain the world, everyone wants a fucking tumble dryer, everyone wants a giant flat screen. and the Oil will run out. And it costs like 100 years of oil to build solar panels in death valley. That's not going to work! Governments don't get elected saying let's all conserve energy, give back your lifestyle. So they just keep on borrowing. The Prez that takes that stand will be like the next Kennedy. Some idiot who gets assassinated speaking the truth, trying to pull out of WW III. Could the US hold Putin back without a military. It's only the threat of ballistic missiles blowing up his palace that's holding him back. It's probably better if the US takes the rest of the world before the East gets organized and we have duke it out for the last resources left on the earth.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the US has borrowed 15 trillion dollars over the years.

the US owe China 1 trillion dollars. that's a lot of fireworks.

I guess those investors probably want their money back so they don't really want the US economy to tank.

The only question is where that money go and will they ever need to pay it back? maybe, not if you have a kick ass military. you'll get your trillion dollars when you pry my cold dead hand off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

I think it's more about being the bigger person. Without being too patronizing, it's hard not to feel superior to idiots. Oh, the irony. But I see levels of ignorance on both sides. If there was a country called Wastedstan, and you wanted to invade it, you could take it and I'd leave to colonize a moon. Whatever for you to be happy, I don't need a patch of sand just a vacuum and keyboard. But it's centuries of built up prejudices and blood has been spilled. Schools is wrong no matter what, who can live with that? There's other ways. Just go in on the ground. Just retreat away out of Hamas rocket range? Where's the US when you need them? We can build an iPod in the Philipines and sell it to you for 9.99 but we can't move a few people outside rocket range. Earth people: I was born on Jupiter, put your weapons down your demise is coming sooner than you think. Why do we always end up at killing each other? Maybe like Marty said after he spilled that green paint can, "I guess I'm just a natural born killer." Our innate instincts are to kill? There's got to be a better way.

Edited by wasted
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

I think it's more about being the bigger person. Without being too patronizing, it's hard not to feel superior to idiots. Oh, the irony. But I see levels of ignorance on both sides. If there was a country called Wastedstan, and you wanted to invade it, you could take it and I'd leave to colonize a moon. Whatever for you to be happy, I don't need a patch of sand just a vacuum and keyboard. But it's centuries of built up prejudices and blood has been spilled. Schools is wrong no matter what, who can live with that? There's other ways. Just go in on the ground. Just retreat away out of Hamas rocket range? Where's the US when you need them? We can build an iPod in the Philipines and sell it to you for 9.99 but we can't move a few people outside rocket range. Earth people: I was born on Jupiter, put your weapons down your demise is coming sooner than you think. Why do we always end up at killing each other? Maybe like Marty said after he spilled that green paint can, "I guess I'm just a natural born killer." Our innate instincts are to kill? There's got to be a better way.

Doesn't killing it come after fucking it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

I think it's more about being the bigger person. Without being too patronizing, it's hard not to feel superior to idiots. Oh, the irony. But I see levels of ignorance on both sides. If there was a country called Wastedstan, and you wanted to invade it, you could take it and I'd leave to colonize a moon. Whatever for you to be happy, I don't need a patch of sand just a vacuum and keyboard. But it's centuries of built up prejudices and blood has been spilled. Schools is wrong no matter what, who can live with that? There's other ways. Just go in on the ground. Just retreat away out of Hamas rocket range? Where's the US when you need them? We can build an iPod in the Philipines and sell it to you for 9.99 but we can't move a few people outside rocket range. Earth people: I was born on Jupiter, put your weapons down your demise is coming sooner than you think. Why do we always end up at killing each other? Maybe like Marty said after he spilled that green paint can, "I guess I'm just a natural born killer." Our innate instincts are to kill? There's got to be a better way.

Doesn't killing it come after fucking it?

The morgue is a very unconventional work place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

I think it's more about being the bigger person. Without being too patronizing, it's hard not to feel superior to idiots. Oh, the irony. But I see levels of ignorance on both sides. If there was a country called Wastedstan, and you wanted to invade it, you could take it and I'd leave to colonize a moon. Whatever for you to be happy, I don't need a patch of sand just a vacuum and keyboard. But it's centuries of built up prejudices and blood has been spilled. Schools is wrong no matter what, who can live with that? There's other ways. Just go in on the ground. Just retreat away out of Hamas rocket range? Where's the US when you need them? We can build an iPod in the Philipines and sell it to you for 9.99 but we can't move a few people outside rocket range. Earth people: I was born on Jupiter, put your weapons down your demise is coming sooner than you think. Why do we always end up at killing each other? Maybe like Marty said after he spilled that green paint can, "I guess I'm just a natural born killer." Our innate instincts are to kill? There's got to be a better way.

i enjoyed reading your post, but not sure if serious :shrugs: we can talk about flying to the moon, better ways (justice, human rights, international laws etc) all day long. in reality it's all about having bigger guns and more determination to use it. nothing has changed in the last couple thousand years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

I think it's more about being the bigger person. Without being too patronizing, it's hard not to feel superior to idiots. Oh, the irony. But I see levels of ignorance on both sides. If there was a country called Wastedstan, and you wanted to invade it, you could take it and I'd leave to colonize a moon. Whatever for you to be happy, I don't need a patch of sand just a vacuum and keyboard. But it's centuries of built up prejudices and blood has been spilled. Schools is wrong no matter what, who can live with that? There's other ways. Just go in on the ground. Just retreat away out of Hamas rocket range? Where's the US when you need them? We can build an iPod in the Philipines and sell it to you for 9.99 but we can't move a few people outside rocket range. Earth people: I was born on Jupiter, put your weapons down your demise is coming sooner than you think. Why do we always end up at killing each other? Maybe like Marty said after he spilled that green paint can, "I guess I'm just a natural born killer." Our innate instincts are to kill? There's got to be a better way.

Doesn't killing it come after fucking it?

You do it your way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been wondering why it are always the same countries who need to help out. Like now, the US and friends are active in Iraq to help out. The US with militairy forces and countries like mine with equipement.

I mean, IS seems to be a threat for the entire area over there, why are other countries not helping out? Countries like Iran, who are Sjiitic and therefor not friends with IS. So why are it always the same countries. Don't think Russia or China like IS, so why not them? Have just been wondering about it. Don't even now how Russia feels about that situation, anybody knows? I think the US are often getting way too much critic as it deserves. Cause when real trouble starts, we are all expecting the US to help out. :shrugs:

Edited by MB.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

I think it's more about being the bigger person. Without being too patronizing, it's hard not to feel superior to idiots. Oh, the irony. But I see levels of ignorance on both sides. If there was a country called Wastedstan, and you wanted to invade it, you could take it and I'd leave to colonize a moon. Whatever for you to be happy, I don't need a patch of sand just a vacuum and keyboard. But it's centuries of built up prejudices and blood has been spilled. Schools is wrong no matter what, who can live with that? There's other ways. Just go in on the ground. Just retreat away out of Hamas rocket range? Where's the US when you need them? We can build an iPod in the Philipines and sell it to you for 9.99 but we can't move a few people outside rocket range. Earth people: I was born on Jupiter, put your weapons down your demise is coming sooner than you think. Why do we always end up at killing each other? Maybe like Marty said after he spilled that green paint can, "I guess I'm just a natural born killer." Our innate instincts are to kill? There's got to be a better way.

i enjoyed reading your post, but not sure if serious :shrugs: we can talk about flying to the moon, better ways (justice, human rights, international laws etc) all day long. in reality it's all about having bigger guns and more determination to use it. nothing has changed in the last couple thousand years

I'm joking seriously and seriously wasted, to be honest. but yes it's just an ideological problem. First rule of Wastedstan, stop firing rockets at each other. After that I'm not sure, maybe take nukes off the table and AK-47s. Weapons get me a little I have to admit, who doesn't like Game of Thrones? We all believe weird stuff and our decision making is almost unconscious (in a bad way) so I see no end to the bloodshed. It's out of our hands, some one is profiting from it but we don't care that much… I wonder what they would do if they got what they wanted? Fight each other within a set of conservative conventions?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been wondering why it are always the same countries who need to help out. Like now, the US and friends are active in Iraq to help out. The US with militairy forces and countries like mine with equipement.

I mean, IS seems to be a threat for the entire area over there, why are other countries not helping out? Countries like Iran, who are Sjiitic and therefor not friends with IS. So why are it always the same countries. Don't think Russia or China like IS, so why not them? Have just been wondering about it. Don't even now how Russia feels about that situation, anybody knows? I think the US are often getting way too much critic as it deserves. Cause when real trouble starts, we are all expecting the US to help out. :shrugs:

it might be because fundamentalist christians want to be in Jerusalem for the second coming of christ? I'm more of a realist. I'm guessing he's not coming back, but I actually think dinosaurs might have been real too. All the leaders are crazy, they have to be, how do they sleep? sending kids over to Iraq to get their legs blown off and they got the wrong country. Whoopsy! Bin Laden was playing Xbox in Pakistan. And they meant to be on our side. Anyone say anything about that AT ALL? No remorse from the Christian B Boyz of the West. Everyone told them not to do it but they had to because they greedy no talent wankers. No they don't have WMDs. Know why? Because they are too useless to make them work. They have a weapons program in theory to scare the enemy away. Actually if they actually had some capabilities we wouldn't have rolled into the country. Remember those tanks and jeeps burning across the desert, they would have been blown off the face of the earth if they had any weapons at all, let alone WMD. They could even find anyone to fight.

maybe all countries not under US control are worried about being invaded by the US. Help is kind of like one step away from being turned into a Nike factory of Hooters. We "helped" Iraq before and now look at it, it needs to be completely "helped"/dismantled and wiped off the face of the planet. Fuck the military might like a mess like this to keep things moving. Terrorists just reinforce the state. Without terrorists or a threat there's no need for the military and they's all have to get a real job which isn't just killing people in a sexy jacket. Nice work if you can get it. It's a web of bullshit if you ask me where we are all victims living a lie we barely understand. New eps of Young & Hungry are on tonight and I've got a huge bag of nachos powered by stolen oil., my Gene Simmons solo albums came from Amazon, just strolling along, hoping everything turns out great...

Edited by wasted
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even now how Russia feels about that situation, anybody knows?

Russia expects that the Iraq war will result in a serious increase in global oil prices and it will strengthen the ruble. on the other hand the instability in the Middle East diverts the attention from what Russia does in Ukraine

First rule of Wastedstan, stop firing rockets at each other.

in Wastedstan they'd be firing absinthe, sambuca and other flaming beverages :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even now how Russia feels about that situation, anybody knows?

Russia expects that the Iraq war will result in a serious increase in global oil prices and it will strengthen the ruble. on the other hand the instability in the Middle East diverts the attention from what Russia does in Ukraine

First rule of Wastedstan, stop firing rockets at each other.

in Wastedstan they'd be firing absinthe, sambuca and other flaming beverages :lol:

9am tequila shots. It's the law. Beheadings at 10am for failure to by over the limit driving at least once a week. Cameras everywhere we will catch you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...