Cat-a-pult

D

Damini

Guest
What happened to your kittens Cama? Did they all get new homes?
 
P

prime1

Guest
Sorry but war is not profitable, it costs billions of dollars to finance a war, its gona cost billions of dollars to pay off Russia, France and China (in treaties and contracts), it will cost billions of dollars to maintain the peace keeping force (UN sponsored or otherwise, ultimately most of the money comes from the US).

The US budget is at crisis point because it cant actaully afford the additional spending on military. And 1 billion dollars in trade is nothing compared to 8 billion dollars just to get permission from Russia. If war was profitable, stock markets would look forward to wars, rather than collapsing as everyone fears the worst happening to the markets. Taxes rise to pay for the armaments, this hurts pollitical positions. The Economy is Bush's worst enemy at th emoment, he knows that, if it was a pollitical decision he woul dbe doing EVERYthing he could to control the economy and prevent tax rises.

Defence contractors do gain from it, but everything else loses out, for a number of reasons (primarily increased taxes or reduced subsidies/grants in other areas, reduced public and private investment). The only way this war would be profitable for the US was if someone else was threatening Iraq, and they wanted to buy the weapons off of the US. Also if the US was doing this for financial reasons, it would have pursued the UN route first, because if the UN sponsors it, they get the war "subsidised" by the UN, meaning some of the money they put in to the UN, comes back to them to help cover the costs of the war.

Please dont try and tell me otherwise, i work in finance and stock markets and have to look at the trends every day, how current climates affect companies finances and government spending/taxes/interest rates/inflation. War is NOT good for the economy, taxes or stock markets.

If war was profitable why was Britain pretty much bankrupt between 1945 and 1960? Why are countries like Rwanda and Sierra Leone not considerably richer than they were 20 years ago.

Most of Iraqs weaponry was sold to them by France and Russia, the US supplied some weaponry, but ny no means all (for example SCUDs are a Russian weapon, i dont see the Iraqi troops using M16s or US aircraft etc).

The Taliban was a mistake by the US, they did not know their agenda would change so rapdily, but the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the Taliban they sponsored were 2 very different entities. What would have happened if they hadnt helped? Without US interference Russia would stil be the Soviet Union, and would probably be dominating most of Asia (afgahanistan, onto pakistan, on to India etc). A choice had to be made, we dont know what would have happened if it wasnt made, but I thinkoverall things turned out for the better.

Clinton feels a war on Iraq is right, he came out in favour recently to support Blair. Kuwait is afraid of Iraq, that is utter bullshit that you say they arnt. Kuwait openly backs a war with Iraq because its desperate to get rid of Saddam so they dont have to worry about their long term future. The ONLY reason why the other states in teh area are not "afraid" of him now, is because they know the US is watching Iraq, if saddam makes a hostile move to any of em, its game over. Without that leash, they WOULD be scared, as they were before the Gulf War.

You said US troops, you are including UN troops and allied troops in your buildup figures. 50000 british and american troops, well thats not 50000 american troops is it. Turkey isnt america, last time i checked. Theres a breakdown on the BBC website....

9000 US personel in Kuwait
1700 in Turkey
25000 naval personel
6600 in Saudi Arabia
3300 in Qatar
500 un UAE
2000 in Oman
4000 in Bahrain
where the fuck did you get your rediculous figures from. A force of 600000 is comparable to what they sent us in WW2 ffs.

The only reason why Saddam hasnt been able to terrorise his neighbours is cause the US is watching him, well I guess the US is tired of "watching" him cause its not doing any good other than delaying the inevitable. There were 50 pages of evidende in that dossier, and it dosnt all come from pollitical opponents based outside Iraq.

It was only 1 memebr of UNSCOM who disagreed with the current US stance on Iraq, the rest all agreed with it.

Its is absurd to suggest intervention in Indonesia, the deathtoll would be obscene, Indonesia is a powerful, regional force, with an effective large army. It violates human rights, but dosnt threaten its neigbours, and dosnt use WOMD. By the same arguments you could "qualify" an attack on China. You have to look at what CAN be done, Iraq can be improved Afghanistan COULD be improved, because regime change was POSSIBLE, at a quantifyable cost.

Stu part of your argument seems to be this : If you dont do it for 1, dont do it for any. That seems a little stupid, because doing it for ANY should be a good thing.

The US is NOT using terrorism as its primary argument, terrorism is in there as a secondary point, its never been about terrorism, Iraqs violations and continued ATTACKS on US/UK (UN) forces in the area were on the agenda long before 9/11 .

The problem with the US cutting off its support for Isreal is that noone knows what will then happen to Isreal, it is surrounded by countries that were hostile before the Pallestinian "troubles". There are large miltiary groups in the area that have vowed to kill every Jew, and wipe out Isreal, you act like its a one sided argument. Isreal is in an extreme situation and it has taken extreme measures in attempt to protect itself. The difference with Isreal and Iraq is this :

Saddam CHOSE his methods and regime, the laws and oppression. Isreal was FORCED into its position, if its neighbours hadnt been hostile from day 1, none of this would have happened.

I dont condone Isreals actions, but i UNDERSTAND them. There are several bad guys in the Isreal situation, and unfortunately no real good guys. Would you have the US invade both (1 a nuclear power?). Isreal does itself no favours, but then again neither do the Pallestinians.

Damini is also correct in that you have to look at the end picture, rather than how we got there (to an extent). The end picture is this :

A peaceful regime in Iraq, its people freed from oppresion, its neigbours freed from the threat of attack and intimidation.

Ultimately i dont give a shit if the only reason the US makes that picture is cause it wants cheaper oil (which is crap anyway). The final result is a good one, the cost (at THIS time) will not be TOO high (in terms of human lives), and the end result outweighs the cost, by a long way.
 
T

throdgrain

Guest
Fuck me thats a reply and a half ! You dont think hes ever been in the audience for "Qiestion Time" do you ? ;)
 
N

Nos-

Guest
5620!

That middle window was pretty messy at the end :/
 
S

Sar

Guest
Originally posted by prime1
Sorry but war is not profitable, it costs billions of dollars to finance a war, its gona cost billions of dollars to pay off Russia, France and China (in treaties and contracts), it will cost billions of dollars to maintain the peace keeping force (UN sponsored or otherwise, ultimately most of the money comes from the US).

The US budget is at crisis point because it cant actaully afford the additional spending on military. And 1 billion dollars in trade is nothing compared to 8 billion dollars just to get permission from Russia. If war was profitable, stock markets would look forward to wars, rather than collapsing as everyone fears the worst happening to the markets. Taxes rise to pay for the armaments, this hurts pollitical positions. The Economy is Bush's worst enemy at th emoment, he knows that, if it was a pollitical decision he woul dbe doing EVERYthing he could to control the economy and prevent tax rises.

Defence contractors do gain from it, but everything else loses out, for a number of reasons (primarily increased taxes or reduced subsidies/grants in other areas, reduced public and private investment). The only way this war would be profitable for the US was if someone else was threatening Iraq, and they wanted to buy the weapons off of the US. Also if the US was doing this for financial reasons, it would have pursued the UN route first, because if the UN sponsors it, they get the war "subsidised" by the UN, meaning some of the money they put in to the UN, comes back to them to help cover the costs of the war.

Please dont try and tell me otherwise, i work in finance and stock markets and have to look at the trends every day, how current climates affect companies finances and government spending/taxes/interest rates/inflation. War is NOT good for the economy, taxes or stock markets.

If war was profitable why was Britain pretty much bankrupt between 1945 and 1960? Why are countries like Rwanda and Sierra Leone not considerably richer than they were 20 years ago.

Most of Iraqs weaponry was sold to them by France and Russia, the US supplied some weaponry, but ny no means all (for example SCUDs are a Russian weapon, i dont see the Iraqi troops using M16s or US aircraft etc).

The Taliban was a mistake by the US, they did not know their agenda would change so rapdily, but the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the Taliban they sponsored were 2 very different entities. What would have happened if they hadnt helped? Without US interference Russia would stil be the Soviet Union, and would probably be dominating most of Asia (afgahanistan, onto pakistan, on to India etc). A choice had to be made, we dont know what would have happened if it wasnt made, but I thinkoverall things turned out for the better.

Clinton feels a war on Iraq is right, he came out in favour recently to support Blair. Kuwait is afraid of Iraq, that is utter bullshit that you say they arnt. Kuwait openly backs a war with Iraq because its desperate to get rid of Saddam so they dont have to worry about their long term future. The ONLY reason why the other states in teh area are not "afraid" of him now, is because they know the US is watching Iraq, if saddam makes a hostile move to any of em, its game over. Without that leash, they WOULD be scared, as they were before the Gulf War.

You said US troops, you are including UN troops and allied troops in your buildup figures. 50000 british and american troops, well thats not 50000 american troops is it. Turkey isnt america, last time i checked. Theres a breakdown on the BBC website....

9000 US personel in Kuwait
1700 in Turkey
25000 naval personel
6600 in Saudi Arabia
3300 in Qatar
500 un UAE
2000 in Oman
4000 in Bahrain
where the fuck did you get your rediculous figures from. A force of 600000 is comparable to what they sent us in WW2 ffs.

The only reason why Saddam hasnt been able to terrorise his neighbours is cause the US is watching him, well I guess the US is tired of "watching" him cause its not doing any good other than delaying the inevitable. There were 50 pages of evidende in that dossier, and it dosnt all come from pollitical opponents based outside Iraq.

It was only 1 memebr of UNSCOM who disagreed with the current US stance on Iraq, the rest all agreed with it.

Its is absurd to suggest intervention in Indonesia, the deathtoll would be obscene, Indonesia is a powerful, regional force, with an effective large army. It violates human rights, but dosnt threaten its neigbours, and dosnt use WOMD. By the same arguments you could "qualify" an attack on China. You have to look at what CAN be done, Iraq can be improved Afghanistan COULD be improved, because regime change was POSSIBLE, at a quantifyable cost.

Stu part of your argument seems to be this : If you dont do it for 1, dont do it for any. That seems a little stupid, because doing it for ANY should be a good thing.

The US is NOT using terrorism as its primary argument, terrorism is in there as a secondary point, its never been about terrorism, Iraqs violations and continued ATTACKS on US/UK (UN) forces in the area were on the agenda long before 9/11 .

The problem with the US cutting off its support for Isreal is that noone knows what will then happen to Isreal, it is surrounded by countries that were hostile before the Pallestinian "troubles". There are large miltiary groups in the area that have vowed to kill every Jew, and wipe out Isreal, you act like its a one sided argument. Isreal is in an extreme situation and it has taken extreme measures in attempt to protect itself. The difference with Isreal and Iraq is this :

Saddam CHOSE his methods and regime, the laws and oppression. Isreal was FORCED into its position, if its neighbours hadnt been hostile from day 1, none of this would have happened.

I dont condone Isreals actions, but i UNDERSTAND them. There are several bad guys in the Isreal situation, and unfortunately no real good guys. Would you have the US invade both (1 a nuclear power?). Isreal does itself no favours, but then again neither do the Pallestinians.

Damini is also correct in that you have to look at the end picture, rather than how we got there (to an extent). The end picture is this :

A peaceful regime in Iraq, its people freed from oppresion, its neigbours freed from the threat of attack and intimidation.

Ultimately i dont give a shit if the only reason the US makes that picture is cause it wants cheaper oil (which is crap anyway). The final result is a good one, the cost (at THIS time) will not be TOO high (in terms of human lives), and the end result outweighs the cost, by a long way.
Click to expand...

HOLY SHIT! WRONG THREAD BATMAN!

:D
 
C

caLLous

Guest
Yes, that was established about 10 posts earlier... you needed to quote the entire post again?
 
K

kameleon

Guest
couldn't be bothered, laready had a shit today
 
S

Sar

Guest
Originally posted by caLLous
Yes, that was established about 10 posts earlier... you needed to quote the entire post again?
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes I did.

:p
 
P

prime1

Guest
I have absolutely no fucking idea how that post got posted here, as ive never read this thread before, and i was reading the iraq dossier thread at the time. soz.
 
X

xane

Guest
Originally posted by Damini
What happened to your kittens Cama? Did they all get new homes?
Click to expand...

You realise this flash game is based on a real thing ... :)

Gave away three, kept one, called Bob (female), who proved her cute little worth tonight by trapping her paw in the rocking chair and being whisked off to the 24-hr vet, instantly costing me £70, no serious injury tho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom