We're not #1!

[joe cool 360]

Vel I alree is oof-tobic hoseva svince jew mad za ruferunts....

Do you get the picture?

Regardless of what the Charter of Rights says or the courts say, it is a fact that it is not an efficient way to do business when it takes 25 "Pardon me?"'s just to convey a simple sentence. Time is money.

I think you'd have to agree with this fact.

Would you want to be the one on the operating table when there is an emergency and the surgeon yells "Nwerse, gwet ne na nonnadinsapot dow!!!"

And the nurse stands there scratching her head. "Sorry doctor, I don't understand."

"Nwerse, donna lizzenict do me!!!!! Gwet ne na nonnadinsapot dow!!! Dis mun ivst dieinna!!!"
?

Yeah, you have to annunciate, like this:
[bigimg]http://www.msbkonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ahnold.jpg[/bigimg]
GET TO DA CHOPPA!!!

[solace19k]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

Yeah, then we'd just have to deal with the nuclear weapons headed our way.

Another reason we are having issues with Iran

You think Iran is gonna send nukes at you?

Did you think planes would go crashing into the World Trade Center?
The reason of fearing Iran's nuclear weapons technology isn't just the fear of them using them. It is the fear of a radical government having such capabilities and selling the technology to the one of many international terrorist groups that they blatantly support.

Did you know that there is a lot of evidence that supports the accusation of Iran actually CREATING Hezbollah? Did you know that the technology of creating the deadliest IED in Iraq actually came from Hezbollah? Did you know I have personally detained countless insurgents that had stamped Iranian passports? Did you know that I have also personally detained many weapons caches with weapons chock full of Iran manufactured weapons?

So you tell me Snorri, Do you think Iran has any issues using nuclear technology against the United States and other European nations? Do you think Iran has any issues selling that technology to a terrorist organization? Do you think Iran will not only sell it but aid them in creating the technology? A huge bomb isn't the only weapon you can make using nuclear technology with some of the same effects.

[joe cool 360]

Your money is magically worth more than anyone else's money?

Uh... where did I say that?
What I'm saying is that regardles of how much or what percentage of money is spent on charitable giving, the important thing is that it's spent where it needs to be spent.

Oh I can see that. But I was just saying that people who say "teh US donates far more money than yous!" is being silly. I don't particularly care about how much you donate, just that everyone realises it is not that much for you.

duh

But on the other hand, there are a couple million different other things that we are spending our money on as well

Unlike every other country?

I seriously call into question anyone who says that Moldova or Suriname or any other small country has as many expenditures to worry about as the U.S.
Russia, Canada, Great Britain, China, Japan, etc. Those countries, in addition to the U.S. are the ones that have a great deal of money to work with and in order to maintain that great deal of money, need to spend a lot of money.
I would argue that the U.S. has to be even more adept when budgeting because of the amounts of money that we conduct transactions with. America is very involved in the global market and in international affairs, which requires large expenditures of money.

[solace19k]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

It is clear from the research of one person? I agree that is an interesting concept mpjh, but I am far from believing suicide attacks will stop when we leave the middle east. They didn't just come up with the idea of a suicide bomb when we invaded Iraq. Um, basically the planes that were used in the 9/11 attacks were a giant suicide bomb. I guess the suicide attacks throughout history and that are still on-going are directly linked to the US?

Invaded carries such a negative connotation don't you think?
Invasion to me is pretty much the complete control of another former sovereign country.
As far as I know Iraq still maintains its sovereignty and most of its programs and its resources are coming from US funding. But I appreciate you bringing facts with you man.

I know it might be tough for you, but read the summaries of the research before you go spouting off. The research is part of the development of the largest data base on terrorist activity in the world. It is more thatn the conclusion of one professor. By the way, what is your PhD in anyway?

Do I detect hostility in your sarcastic remarks?
Does it bother you that your remark about "quite clear" based on this research alone and "common sense", isn't enough to prove your pretty unorthodox idea.

Have I insulted you at all? I just don't buy that fairly lame point. Honestly mpjh, I guess common sense eludes me seeing how it has been common practice for terrorists to use suicide tactics long before the United States even stepped foot in the Middle East.
Do I think that the US is drawing terrorist acts against them by being there... ABSOLUTELY!!!! That is one of the many reasons we are there, so it isn't done here. They are blowing their resources and time attacking the brave men and women over there instead of planting a roadside bomb on I-20 over in Georgia. How in the world can you say that the use of suicide tactics is linked to the United States being there... OF COURSE IT IS!!!! that's the point man. The idea of the suicide tactics stopping just because the US isn't in the middle east is kind of far fetched. They have been doing it for decades and they will find another reason to do it for decades more. It is part of their tactics, it has been and it always will be. Terrorism is a business too mpjh.

[Frigidus]

i think that the war in irac is ok because terrorists are bad people and mulsim isnt a corect religion neways hey if they didnt want to get blown up they shouldnt have blown up the 9/11 towers lol!

[solace19k]

Oh and mpjh if you want to stoop to petty insulting and mocking I'd be happy to join you down in Flame Wars. Here in the general forum lets keep it fairly civil shall we?

I haven't insulted you once or anybody for that matter, and quite a few times I have even complimented the posts of users that are countering what I say. That last post you made was out of line, I would expect more from a smart guy such as yourself.

[joe cool 360]

i think that the war in irac is ok because terrorists are bad people and mulsim isnt a corect religion neways hey if they didnt want to get blown up they shouldnt have blown up the 9/11 towers lol!

Edited for reality:

I think the war in Iraq is ok because terrorists are murderers and Islamic extremists are delusional in the interpretation of their faith.
Hey, if the didn't want to get blown up, they shouldn't have blown up the WTC towers and the Pentagon, and flown another flight towards D.C. which crashed in Pennsylvania thanks to the courage of the people on board. They also shouldn't have attacked our embassies, murdered and oppressed their own people, or condoned and participated in other terrorist operations elsewhere.
No lolz about it.

[solace19k]

i think that the war in irac is ok because terrorists are bad people and mulsim isnt a corect religion neways hey if they didnt want to get blown up they shouldnt have blown up the 9/11 towers lol!

Edited for reality:

I think the war in Iraq is ok because terrorists are murderers and Islamic extremists are delusional in the interpretation of their faith.
Hey, if the didn't want to get blown up, they shouldn't have blown up the WTC towers and the Pentagon, and flown another flight towards D.C. which crashed in Pennsylvania thanks to the courage of the people on board. They also shouldn't have attacked our embassies, murdered and oppressed their own people, or condoned and participated in other terrorist operations elsewhere.
No lolz about it.

Beat me to it, Quoted for the truth, JoeCool as I have said before you are a Patriot and a Scholar. Let me also repeat what he said. The majority of the Islamic faith actually frowns upon the actions of these murderers. They don't even consider them Muslim,
Saying that their actions are in fact in direct contrast of their own religion and that they are only using the name of God as an excuse to hide their true motive...money....
Thus effectively making THEM the infidels. Since they are worshiping money over God's will.

[mpjh]

Oh and mpjh if you want to stoop to petty insulting and mocking I'd be happy to join you down in Flame Wars. Here in the general forum lets keep it fairly civil shall we?

I haven't insulted you once or anybody for that matter, and quite a few times I have even complimented the posts of users that are countering what I say. That last post you made was out of line, I would expect more from a smart guy such as yourself.

Typical.

You insult the professor that spent years assembling the data base and doing the research. You insult all those that studied the issue trying to protect their country. You insult any honest investigation into what suicide terrorism is all about. And then you try and label anyone calling you out on that as "hostile." You have a very thin intellectual skin. I point out that you obviously haven't read even the summaries of the research and ask whether your educational level is equal to those who did the research and you get all blubbery and want to flame.

The fact is that research shows that through the last several hundred years the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks have been made by secular (that means non-religious) groups seeking the removal of occupying forces from their land. The include the Tamil Tigers. Recent suicide terrorist attacks, like those emanating from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are also fundamentally driven by a desire to get non-Arab troops off their land.

If follows from this research that removing the troops removes much of the impetus for the attacks.

[Snorri1234]

Your money is magically worth more than anyone else's money?

Uh... where did I say that?
What I'm saying is that regardles of how much or what percentage of money is spent on charitable giving, the important thing is that it's spent where it needs to be spent.

Well yes, but why would other countries not do the same thing?

And anyway, most of the money isn't spent very good anyway. Especially government-funds. It was not uncommon to give some money to a dictator in Africa when he promised it would be spent on feeding his people. (Instead of arming himself, which is what actually happened.)

I seriously call into question anyone who says that Moldova or Suriname or any other small country has as many expenditures to worry about as the U.S.

Yeah, but Suriname and Moldova wouldn't spend any money on foreign aid anyway.

Russia, Canada, Great Britain, China, Japan, etc. Those countries, in addition to the U.S. are the ones that have a great deal of money to work with and in order to maintain that great deal of money, need to spend a lot of money.
I would argue that the U.S. has to be even more adept when budgeting because of the amounts of money that we conduct transactions with. America is very involved in the global market and in international affairs, which requires large expenditures of money.

Possibly, but unimportant. All the developed countries have to worry about how to spend their money. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you have more things to spend it on in a government-budget type of way. (ofcourse, at the smaller level a bigger country has to regulate where the money goes when already assigned the amount of money.) If I have 2000 dollars to spend on food, recreation and rent and you have 4000 to spend on the same things, the only difference is that you can decide on more ways to spend it in every sector. The amount of money you allocate to each thing is relatively easy to think off though. And this example fails to even addres the fact that a bigger country has a larger government. (At least, more people working for the government.)

[solace19k]

Oh and mpjh if you want to stoop to petty insulting and mocking I'd be happy to join you down in Flame Wars. Here in the general forum lets keep it fairly civil shall we?

I haven't insulted you once or anybody for that matter, and quite a few times I have even complimented the posts of users that are countering what I say. That last post you made was out of line, I would expect more from a smart guy such as yourself.

Typical.

You insult the professor that spent years assembling the data base and doing the research. You insult all those that studied the issue trying to protect their country. You insult any honest investigation into what suicide terrorism is all about. And then you try and label anyone calling you out on that as "hostile." You have a very thin intellectual skin. I point out that you obviously haven't read even the summaries of the research and ask whether your educational level is equal to those who did the research and you get all blubbery and want to flame.

The fact is that research shows that through the last several hundred years the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks have been made by secular (that means non-religious) groups seeking the removal of occupying forces from their land. The include the Tamil Tigers. Recent suicide terrorist attacks, like those emanating from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are also fundamentally driven by a desire to get non-Arab troops off their land.

If follows from this research that removing the troops removes much of the impetus for the attacks.

I didn't insult the research, I questioned your conclusion drawn from that research.
I said that making that assumption was far-fetched to me. Tell me what you think it will accomplish if we just simply "remove" foreign troops from the Middle East. I am quite sure the terrorists would simply just find another reason to commit their acts of murder.
You honestly think that the ONLY thing driving them is the presence of foreign troops that are re-building their 3rd world country. It is a business mpjh, and it works based off of the same foundation of supply and demand. There will always be a demand, regardless of their reasons. It is foolish to remove a stabilizing force and give them free reign and leave men like that unchecked. We aren't trying to do it ourselves forever. We are simply trying to stabilize the situation until they can do it for themselves. By the way, from personal experience, most of the thugs over there don't want us to leave because we are keeping them in business. That is why security started to decline during the security pact negotiations. They wanted to show that Iraq was not ready to take the reigns and that the United States needed to be there longer. They are trying to discredit the security and the Iraqi government.

[joe cool 360]

Well yes, but why would other countries not do the same thing?

And anyway, most of the money isn't spent very good anyway. Especially government-funds. It was not uncommon to give some money to a dictator in Africa when he promised it would be spent on feeding his people. (Instead of arming himself, which is what actually happened.)

I'm not applying what I said exclusively to the U.S. obviously, all countries need to possess some element of fiscal responsibility. (As for the government not spending the money well, that is the reason why the vast majority of donations to other countries from the U.S. are made through private organizations.)

Yeah, but Suriname and Moldova wouldn't spend any money on foreign aid anyway.

I'm merely giving an example, in addition, when I made the remark:

I seriously call into question anyone who says that Moldova or Suriname or any other small country has as many expenditures to worry about as the U.S.

It was in reply to this statement:

But on the other hand, there are a couple million different other things that we are spending our money on as well

Unlike every other country?

I addressed your question as it applied to smaller countries first, arguing that because they are small, they do not have as much to worry about as far as certain expenditures are concerned (I'm thinking along the lines of military, healthcare, education, etc.)
Your question was not related to foreign aid, you were asking if I thought that no other country has to worry about budgeting.

Possibly, but unimportant. All the developed countries have to worry about how to spend their money. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you have more things to spend it on in a government-budget type of way. (ofcourse, at the smaller level a bigger country has to regulate where the money goes when already assigned the amount of money.) If I have 2000 dollars to spend on food, recreation and rent and you have 4000 to spend on the same things, the only difference is that you can decide on more ways to spend it in every sector. The amount of money you allocate to each thing is relatively easy to think off though. And this example fails to even addres the fact that a bigger country has a larger government. (At least, more people working for the government.)

It also has to deal with the population. The only reason I don't say that China and India (1st and 2nd in pop) actually have more to worry about as far as government spending goes is because they don't have all the existing technologies, advanced structures, complex systems, etc. to maintain that the U.S. does (3rd in pop). True, they are in a stage of rapid development, which produces enormous expenditures of its own. But if anyone has ever owned anything of some value, you will know that the cost of maintaining an item far exceeds the cost of purchasing/developing the product in the long-run, and sometimes in the short-term.

Also, maybe I'm confused, but doesn't it follow that if a country has a larger government, there will be more fields that require expenditures?

[solace19k]

By the way I am leading you to throw up that we are supplying their demand... So I can refer you to the post of mine before the one you just quoted. Stop ignoring everything else that I say and focusing on what is relative what little you have to offer.

My education level IS the "war on terrorism"
It is also a main contribution to the data that your researchers have so graciously provided.

[mpjh]

Oh and mpjh if you want to stoop to petty insulting and mocking I'd be happy to join you down in Flame Wars. Here in the general forum lets keep it fairly civil shall we?

I haven't insulted you once or anybody for that matter, and quite a few times I have even complimented the posts of users that are countering what I say. That last post you made was out of line, I would expect more from a smart guy such as yourself.

Typical.

You insult the professor that spent years assembling the data base and doing the research. You insult all those that studied the issue trying to protect their country. You insult any honest investigation into what suicide terrorism is all about. And then you try and label anyone calling you out on that as "hostile." You have a very thin intellectual skin. I point out that you obviously haven't read even the summaries of the research and ask whether your educational level is equal to those who did the research and you get all blubbery and want to flame.

The fact is that research shows that through the last several hundred years the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks have been made by secular (that means non-religious) groups seeking the removal of occupying forces from their land. The include the Tamil Tigers. Recent suicide terrorist attacks, like those emanating from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are also fundamentally driven by a desire to get non-Arab troops off their land.

If follows from this research that removing the troops removes much of the impetus for the attacks.

I didn't insult the research, I questioned your conclusion drawn from that research.
I said that making that assumption was far-fetched to me. Tell me what you think it will accomplish if we just simply "remove" foreign troops from the Middle East. I am quite sure the terrorists would simply just find another reason to commit their acts of murder.
You honestly think that the ONLY thing driving them is the presence of foreign troops that are re-building their 3rd world country. It is a business mpjh, and it works based off of the same foundation of supply and demand. There will always be a demand, regardless of their reasons. It is foolish to remove a stabilizing force and give them free reign and leave men like that unchecked. We aren't trying to do it ourselves forever. We are simply trying to stabilize the situation until they can do it for themselves. By the way, from personal experience, most of the thugs over there don't want us to leave because we are keeping them in business. That is why security started to decline during the security pact negotiations. They wanted to show that Iraq was not ready to take the reigns and that the United States needed to be there longer. They are trying to discredit the security and the Iraqi government.

Listen, I am not interested in what the psyc-warfare guys feed you. Go read the University of Chicago research, which is public and peer-reviewed as opposed to the mind control stuff you are repeating, and then we can talk.

[solace19k]

Oh and mpjh if you want to stoop to petty insulting and mocking I'd be happy to join you down in Flame Wars. Here in the general forum lets keep it fairly civil shall we?

I haven't insulted you once or anybody for that matter, and quite a few times I have even complimented the posts of users that are countering what I say. That last post you made was out of line, I would expect more from a smart guy such as yourself.

Typical.

You insult the professor that spent years assembling the data base and doing the research. You insult all those that studied the issue trying to protect their country. You insult any honest investigation into what suicide terrorism is all about. And then you try and label anyone calling you out on that as "hostile." You have a very thin intellectual skin. I point out that you obviously haven't read even the summaries of the research and ask whether your educational level is equal to those who did the research and you get all blubbery and want to flame.

The fact is that research shows that through the last several hundred years the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks have been made by secular (that means non-religious) groups seeking the removal of occupying forces from their land. The include the Tamil Tigers. Recent suicide terrorist attacks, like those emanating from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are also fundamentally driven by a desire to get non-Arab troops off their land.

If follows from this research that removing the troops removes much of the impetus for the attacks.

I didn't insult the research, I questioned your conclusion drawn from that research.
I said that making that assumption was far-fetched to me. Tell me what you think it will accomplish if we just simply "remove" foreign troops from the Middle East. I am quite sure the terrorists would simply just find another reason to commit their acts of murder.
You honestly think that the ONLY thing driving them is the presence of foreign troops that are re-building their 3rd world country. It is a business mpjh, and it works based off of the same foundation of supply and demand. There will always be a demand, regardless of their reasons. It is foolish to remove a stabilizing force and give them free reign and leave men like that unchecked. We aren't trying to do it ourselves forever. We are simply trying to stabilize the situation until they can do it for themselves. By the way, from personal experience, most of the thugs over there don't want us to leave because we are keeping them in business. That is why security started to decline during the security pact negotiations. They wanted to show that Iraq was not ready to take the reigns and that the United States needed to be there longer. They are trying to discredit the security and the Iraqi government.

Listen, I am not interested in what the psyc-warfare guys feed you. Go read the University of Chicago research, which is public and peer-reviewed as opposed to the mind control stuff you are repeating, and then we can talk.

So you are discrediting my sources too? Isn't that what you just pointed out that I insulted your source? Where do you think military information is gathered from?
Where do you think that civilian's get their information from? I don't recall seeing any University professors out there gathering data. So some of this information that is being used to compile this data is being reported by military sources in the Middle East right now. They are looking at historical information and comparing it to information gathered by military experiences and civilian experiences in the Middle East right now. We are using the same information and making different points.

It is almost getting to be redundant to explain myself anymore because basically this is just going to go round and round. You have your opinion and I have mine, it doesn't change that I feel that we are doing a noble and constructive thing out there and you think we are wasting millions of dollars and innocent lives and working towards a counter-productive goal in the Middle East. Either way, it doesn't change anything. America will defeat this. It doesn't matter if the people agree with it or not. It is not an option now, we are committed to the cause that we set out to accomplish. In my honest opinion mpjh, if it were left to people with your attitude we would be once again thrown into this situation all over again 10 years from now.

[mpjh]

Your sources are not public and are not reviewed by with any scientific rigor, they are just self-serving military propaganda.

I am offering public information, peer-reviewed by scientists. Read it, you might learn something.

[Snorri1234]

It was in reply to this statement:

But on the other hand, there are a couple million different other things that we are spending our money on as well

Unlike every other country?

I addressed your question as it applied to smaller countries first, arguing that because they are small, they do not have as much to worry about as far as certain expenditures are concerned (I'm thinking along the lines of military, healthcare, education, etc.)
Your question was not related to foreign aid, you were asking if I thought that no other country has to worry about budgeting.

Well, every country has to worry about budgeting. Sure, the really small countries, or the countries with dictators, don't have to worry about as much as developed nations who help their citizens, but budgeting is still a worry in even the smallest of countries.

And the developed nations have as much to worry about as the US, just not with the same numbers.

It also has to deal with the population. The only reason I don't say that China and India (1st and 2nd in pop) actually have more to worry about as far as government spending goes is because they don't have all the existing technologies, advanced structures, complex systems, etc. to maintain that the U.S. does (3rd in pop). True, they are in a stage of rapid development, which produces enormous expenditures of its own. But if anyone has ever owned anything of some value, you will know that the cost of maintaining an item far exceeds the cost of purchasing/developing the product in the long-run, and sometimes in the short-term.

Yeah, but europe for example has all the same things as the US and has to worry about spending on it too. In fact, since the european countries generally have more advanced social programs like healthcare and welfare they have to divide money over a bigger amount of fields than the US. Governments over here are involved into far more things in society than in the US and China for example.

Also, maybe I'm confused, but doesn't it follow that if a country has a larger government, there will be more fields that require expenditures?

I wouldn't say that. A larger government only means that the money from state-taxes is more spread out, not that there are more fields to spend money on. My entire country could easily fit into one state of yours, but the basic fields in which money is spent are still the same.

At the national level, a bigger country doesn't neccisarly have more fields that require expenditure. You may pay more into each field, and each field is bigger and has more sub-fields, but at the national level there aren't more fields. The government in the form of the senate and president do not give money specifically to build a statue in some random town, they just form basic policies over the whole nation. I don't see a reason why that means more fields at a national level.

[jbrettlip]

Scientists can never be wrong...Would you like a lobotomy, it cures insanity. Just ask the scientists of the 50's.

[solace19k]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man. It is hard to discredit a man's beliefs when they are generated from his own personal experience. Oh, and please spare me the "you think your special" line.

Do it, you actually might learn something.

[Snorri1234]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man.

I don't think I've ever read any scientific study where personal experience was used as a source.

[solace19k]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man.

I don't think I've ever read any scientific study where personal experience was used as a source.

I don't think scientific studies are the only thing we use when we are faced with any problem in any given situation.


There is not much scientific proof of the existence of God and Christ's miracles either.
Doesn't mean its not true. I really don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but I am merely using it as an example.

Live your life and base your morales and values and form your opinions on mere "scientific" studies if you like.

[jbrettlip]

If you only refer to science and studies to make decisions, every handicapped person on the planet would starve to death.

[solace19k]

And before this gets taken out of context I would like to point out that scientific studies are a form of personal experience

[mpjh]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man. It is hard to discredit a man's beliefs when they are generated from his own personal experience. Oh, and please spare me the "you think your special" line.

Do it, you actually might learn something.

I am a veteran. I have done it. My personal experience says that the Irag war is foolish and a waste of valuable resources, including you.

[solace19k]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man. It is hard to discredit a man's beliefs when they are generated from his own personal experience. Oh, and please spare me the "you think your special" line.

Do it, you actually might learn something.

I am a veteran. I have done it. My personal experience says that the Irag war is foolish and a waste of valuable resources, including you.

And I appreciate your service and your concern mpjh, from the bottom of my heart.
But our difference in opinion is what makes America. I'm not holding anything against you nor do I think you are misguided or not intelligent. This is an open debate, and a good way to kill a boring day.