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

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

They should spend their money on anything but the army tbh.

[wasted]

But if you don't have an awesome military you can't borrow infinite amounts of money to buy oil to party with.

So I vote keep the military ante up. But we don't have to lie to yourselves about it. I don't really want an Islamic state storming across into Europe blowing shit up.

[The Sandman]

A wrestling organisation to rival the WWE.

[wasted]

Like Nacho Libre and shit.

[netcat]

We'll as I understand it the Russian Israelies are kind of linked to Jews in American. It's those Russians Jews that are the badasses who take zero shit. Hamas keeps launching missiles at them in some holy war type thing. And Russian Jews with US money are like fuck you.

yeah the idea of not taking shit from terrorists and other international bullies is highly unpopular at the moment. this type of approach will bring the world peace and a lot of happiness in a long run

[Johnny Drama]

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

[wasted]

We'll as I understand it the Russian Israelies are kind of linked to Jews in American. It's those Russians Jews that are the badasses who take zero shit. Hamas keeps launching missiles at them in some holy war type thing. And Russian Jews with US money are like fuck you.

yeah the idea of not taking shit from terrorists and other international bullies is highly unpopular at the moment. this type of approach will bring the world peace and a lot of happiness in a long run

Neither side will back down. In the UK there were these pro Palestine marches and Palestine Occupy the BBC. There seems to be support for Hamas. But to me it's Hamas that are the terrorists. They are like we won't stop until Israel is wiped out and even from a position of weakness use these tunnels to hide behind and schools. But these Russians Jews don't care and are just bombing schools. It's so stupid it's not worth thinking about. I guess if your kids get blown up you never forgive. And so it continues.

[wasted]

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. It's possible without tax payer money spent on wars we'd turn into places in the Middle East. We aren't self sufficient. It's just borrowed money and a solid infrastructure and a military to protect it. It's not like we make things which we sell at a profit and hence have tons of cash to make our lives better. We aren't the most successful lemonade stand on the street.

[Ace Nova]

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. It's possible without tax payer money spent on wars we'd turn into places in the Middle East. We aren't self sufficient. It's just borrowed money and a solid infrastructure and a military to protect it. It's not like we make things which we sell at a profit and hence have tons of cash to make our lives better. We aren't the most successful lemonade stand on the street.

But we are.

[downzy]

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.

Edited August 14, 2014 by downzy

[wasted]

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. It's possible without tax payer money spent on wars we'd turn into places in the Middle East. We aren't self sufficient. It's just borrowed money and a solid infrastructure and a military to protect it. It's not like we make things which we sell at a profit and hence have tons of cash to make our lives better. We aren't the most successful lemonade stand on the street.

But we are.

No we aren't, both US and UK Gov. borrow money to pay for jobs, pensions, welfare etc. It's not self-generated wealth. Then we import the lemonade from Philipines and sell it for a profit or cheaply enough for people who are basically looked after by the gov to buy. Without wars and exploitation of third world countries for labour we'd be fucked. So we have to have kick ass military to enforce our will if needed.

[wasted]

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??!!!

[downzy]

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).

Edited August 14, 2014 by downzy

[wasted]

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?

I'm not sure how the plutocrats play into this. It could be why we see no attempt to change anything. The US is becoming like China etc. with a powerful elite and the rest just stacking shelves. stable but not glorious, as long as everyone adjusts their expectations. It's like when you have money you buy cds from HMV when you don't you go to the second hand store. When I go to Poundland it's like how I imagine Russia to be in the cold war. Only it's a neo-cold war. Consumerism is the front line. If you can keep the masses happy with cheap disposable products, the plutocrats can get away with a fortune. I've gone into the realms of sic-fi again but here comes RATM with another Bombtrack.

Edited August 14, 2014 by wasted

[netcat]

We'll as I understand it the Russian Israelies are kind of linked to Jews in American. It's those Russians Jews that are the badasses who take zero shit. Hamas keeps launching missiles at them in some holy war type thing. And Russian Jews with US money are like fuck you.

yeah the idea of not taking shit from terrorists and other international bullies is highly unpopular at the moment. this type of approach will bring the world peace and a lot of happiness in a long run

Neither side will back down. In the UK there were these pro Palestine marches and Palestine Occupy the BBC. There seems to be support for Hamas. But to me it's Hamas that are the terrorists. They are like we won't stop until Israel is wiped out and even from a position of weakness use these tunnels to hide behind and schools. But these Russians Jews don't care and are just bombing schools. It's so stupid it's not worth thinking about. I guess if your kids get blown up you never forgive. And so it continues.

i think that even in islamic countries people don't support Hamas that much as they do in Europe right now. the way i see it. you want this carnage to end? then demand Hamas to stop firing rockets on Israel, instead of demanding from Israel to ignore Hamas attacks or put an end to Gaza blockade. you don't want civilian victims or firing at schools? then Hamas needs to stop shooting rockets from civilian houses and using schools as armory. there's cause and effect. and there's propaganda that turns everything on its head. and yes, i agree with you that both sides only understand the language of force and won't back down, but that's how the wars roll.

[wasted]

Hamas won't stop until the Israeli state is wiped out. Which seems unreasonable. I guess Hamas feel like Israel just wants to take Palestine?

[MB.]

No Hamas wants to take Israel (back) and wipe out every jew on this earth. They actually have been pretty clear on that.

[AtariLegend]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Well you know what Gene Simmons would say .

[Georgy Zhukov]

No Hamas wants to take Israel (back) and wipe out every jew on this earth. They actually have been pretty clear on that.

Not all Jews want to go to Israel. The Hasidic Jews in the states are okay with where they live. Hamas doesn't represent the people of Palestine, let alone West Bank.

[DR DOOM]

Only a nutbag would support Hamas, but on the other hand the way Israel are handling this is a bit like bombing a hostage situation.

I have no doubt Hamas put military targets in civilian buildings but blowing up that building and everybody inside it isn't a very good look.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Hamas can have Gene Simmons.

[DR DOOM]

Stop bullying Gene, you bully.

[netcat]

Only a nutbag would support Hamas

or a white man with a huge guilt complex

[MB.]

No Hamas wants to take Israel (back) and wipe out every jew on this earth. They actually have been pretty clear on that.

Not all Jews want to go to Israel. The Hasidic Jews in the states are okay with where they live. Hamas doesn't represent the people of Palestine, let alone West Bank.

Ofcourse not. I wasn't giving my opinion or anything. Just stated what they have been pretty clear on.

And yeah, they don't represent all palestines. Not at all actually. Besides Hamas is corrupt and not a very democratic organisation. It would already be a lot better if Fatah was in control of Gaza. Allthough that organisation is corrupt as well. But at least you can talk to them. Being Fatah in the Gaza is by the way dangerous as well. I know that cause, I have a friend who had to run from Gaza, cause his family was active for Fatah. He was orginally from the West bank, but went to Gaza to teach. They didn't like him over there, so he was urgently asked to go back. Basicly it's a giant mess over there, with no solution in sight. And the innocent people pay a high prize for all of this.

Like I said as long Hamas and Likoed are in control there will be no solution for the Gaza.

But the US should help those poor people in Iraq, trapped on that mountain. I really think Obama is doing well there. At least help them to get off there to a safe area.

[downzy]

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.