Guns and Butter

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Big Al

Meteorologist
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
10
Do you have any idea what a trillion dollars is? It's a hell of a lot of money, that's what. And we're going to flush it all down the toilet fighting the war in Iraq. We've already wasted half that much in Iraq right now.

And that's just the cash. About 4000 american soldiers have also died and thousands have been injured. Then add all the equipment that's been destroyed, damaged or abandoned. That's a lot of waste.

In the meantime here in America we have our bridges and highway system falling apart. Our railsystem is a joke. Our power grid is a joke. And to add insult to injury our education system sucks.

So why? Why can we waste so much money in an unjustified war but we can't invest in our own country. We have plenty of workers and materials to do it. President Bush just has to write the check.
 
It took us 8 years to rebuild Japan, and we didn't even give them back the Ryuyku Islands until 1972. We stayed in Germany for 4 years and in Austria for 10 years. They weren't even resisting and not only did it take us that long to clean up, we're still in those nations. How are we supposed to magically make Iraq peaceful and a model of liberal democracy in a couple of years when we couldn't do it in willing nations with long democratic traditions?
 
I say we leave and let them fight their war. There will be no peace in Iraq and I don't see why should waste our money trying to get it.

And my point is that we have all this money to waste on war and yet we can't improve our own nation.

EDIT: It should be noted more Americans die because we haven't improved our infastructure than have died in terror attacks.
 
Last edited:
Minor difference between Germany/Japan/Austria/etc and Iraq: They sort of invaded half the world, Iraq didn't.
 
evkl said:
Minor difference between Germany/Japan/Austria/etc and Iraq: They sort of invaded half the world, Iraq didn't.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of differences. We pretty much annihilated Germany and Japan and had to build them back from the ground up. It took us 10 years to end those occupations, and it's not like there were Nazis planting IEDs. While I bet we're going to have a major drawdown in the next year or two, we'll still have plenty of residual forces around Iraq for decades.
 
This isn't a damn debate on the Iraq war people. This is a debate on the unwillingness of the U.S. government to upgrade our infastructure.
 
The Big Al said:
It should be noted more Americans die because we haven't improved our infastructure than have died in terror attacks.
Click to expand...

But would not going into Iraq have REALLY affected those? It's not like someone said "well, we can fix this bridge, OR we can send troops to Iraq." Katrina happened. If we hadn't been in Iraq, would the levees have been fixed? Probably not. Would we have had more resources to deploy? Probably. But would that have changed Bush's inaction? Probably not.

Shit happens. Not being in Iraq wouldn't prevent hurricanes from coming. It wouldn't prevent bridges from randomly crashing. Being better prepared for hurricanes would change things. Actually inspecting bridges more than once in a blue moon would change things. But shit would still happen. Before the war, we had several horrible hurricanes. We had horrible tornadoes. We had bridge collapses. Life wouldn't magically change if we were out of Iraq.
 
ARGH!

I'm talking about how we can spend money on war but not on improving our infastructure because shit DOES fucking happen. But it doesn't bite you in the ass nearly as hard when you're prepared. If we had upgraded the levees and the pumps in New Orleans Katrina wouldn't have been nearly as damaging or deadly. If they had fixed the I-35 bridge when it became "structurally defecient" it wouldn't have collapsed. If the power grid had been modernized 50 million people wouldn't have been thrown in the dark.

Would there still be problems, yeah. However they wouldn't turn into absolute diasters as often if we upgraded the infastructure.
 
The Big Al said:
If we had upgraded the levees and the pumps in New Orleans Katrina wouldn't have been nearly as damaging or deadly.
Click to expand...

But WOULD WE HAVE if there hadn't been a war? Was there a decision NOT TO that was decided BECAUSE of the war?

If they had fixed the I-35 bridge when it became "structurally defecient" it wouldn't have collapsed.
Click to expand...

But WOULD WE HAVE if there hadn't been a war? Was there a decision NOT TO that was decided BECAUSE of the war?

If the power grid had been modernized 50 million people wouldn't have been thrown in the dark.
Click to expand...

But WOULD WE HAVE if there hadn't been a war? Was there a decision NOT TO that was decided BECAUSE of the war?

Unless you can draw firm lines between the war and whatever else, then you're just making vague statements. But bridges collapse, hurricanes cause massive damage, and blackouts happen regardless of war.
 
That's my point. We haven't upgraded the infastructure in almost half a century and its starting show. Why won't Washington put up the bucks to do it? But give them a war and they'll pay hand over fist. That's why I'm talking about guns and butter. Even in peace they won't pay for it waiting for the next war it seems.

And yes all that happens regardless but it's worse when you're dealing with outdated equipment and infastructure. I'm talking about limiting the damage from them.
 
It's simple. You can't sell safety. You can sell a war. People don't want to be taxed so their roads are safer. They EXPECT them to be safe. They just don't expect the costs for them to go up. But a war? That's EXCITING. Why do you think Powell had the anthrax in the UN? It was basic showmanship. He was trying to SELL people on the war. And, for that, you need flash and glamor, and slight-of-hand. Roadwork isn't exciting. People SAY they want it. But...they don't. When the bill comes, they don't want it. But a WAR? THAT'S exciting.
 
The Big Al said:
Do you have any idea what a trillion dollars is? It's a hell of a lot of money, that's what. And we're going to flush it all down the toilet fighting the war in Iraq. We've already wasted half that much in Iraq right now.

And that's just the cash. About 4000 american soldiers have also died and thousands have been injured. Then add all the equipment that's been destroyed, damaged or abandoned. That's a lot of waste.

In the meantime here in America we have our bridges and highway system falling apart. Our railsystem is a joke. Our power grid is a joke. And to add insult to injury our education system sucks.

So why? Why can we waste so much money in an unjustified war but we can't invest in our own country. We have plenty of workers and materials to do it. President Bush just has to write the check.
Click to expand...

because you and millions of others are too wimpy to run for presidency. almost ANYONE can be a better president than this guy,
 
The Big Al said:
I'm talking about how we can spend money on war but not on improving our infastructure because shit DOES fucking happen. But it doesn't bite you in the ass nearly as hard when you're prepared. If we had upgraded the levees and the pumps in New Orleans Katrina wouldn't have been nearly as damaging or deadly. If they had fixed the I-35 bridge when it became "structurally defecient" it wouldn't have collapsed. If the power grid had been modernized 50 million people wouldn't have been thrown in the dark.
Click to expand...

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Look, this country is rich enough to wage war in Iraq AND fix/upgrade the infrastructure AND provide universal healthcare, fight global warming, fund schools and eliminate poverty.

So, why don't we do these things? Because it requires taxes. And it ultimately boils down to "I've got mine. Screw you!"
 
Al, out of curiosity, what do you honestly think would happen if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow?
 
I'm all for the theory of "we have too many young men." :p Seems like everytime the country's population goes high, we have a nice war to clear things out a bit. It's a wonder we don't have a man shortage, lol. Still, this is nothing compared to the loss of life in earlier wars. I'm not saying we should be thankful; I'm just saying that maybe we've gone a bit soft.
 
Fucking military-industrial complex.
Eisenhower was right, they own the government now. :bawling:
Thousand dollar toilet seats, anyone? Embezzling contractors, unnecessary nukes, excessively expensive experimental technology, and money lost in the shuffle of bureaucracy.
The DoD consumes money that could be better spent on healthcare, protecting the environment, and repairing the national infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the defense contracting industry pays the bills for pretty much every relevant lawmaker, so I expect the budget for DoD to increase, even under a Democratic president.
 
Actually the toilet seats don't cost $1000. They write off black projects as the extra cost.

Senator: "Are you making robotic stingrays to kill environmentalists?"
Pentagon Guy: "No, we're just buying $1000 toilet seats."

Don't read into the example. I was just having a little fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom