Poll

How should U.S. use their money on aid and military ? See post.

It's fucked up, more money to AID !!
6 (54.5%)
More money to war, $400 billion isn't enough
1 (9.1%)
Sounds right to me
2 (18.2%)
I don't really give a shit
2 (18.2%)

Total Members Voted: 8

  

Author Topic: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid  (Read 287 times)

Thirteen

  • Guest
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2004, 11:30:55 PM »
so what you're trying to say is the US has the most powerful military in the world...but it NEEDS other countries to send a small fraction of their troops or else all hell breaks lose. yep sounds like the thoughts of a person that spends too much time behind their computer
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #51 on: July 22, 2004, 12:38:51 AM »
but america like to use things like blanket and cluster bombs which are totally indescriminate in who they target considering the area they cover. although having said this there have been mixed reports about weather the uk have used some aswell the official line is we havn't used them in iraq but there were reports we used them on tanks in the desert at one point. but americas bombs are notorious for killing way more civillans than the intended targets when they bomb places.

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Maradona

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 408
  • Karma: -49
  • Goal of the Century
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #52 on: July 22, 2004, 12:51:18 AM »
so what you're trying to say is the US has the most powerful military in the world...but it NEEDS other countries to send a small fraction of their troops or else all hell breaks lose. yep sounds like the thoughts of a person that spends too much time behind their computer

All hell would break loose regardless; it doesn't matter how many countries send their troops. A lot of those people don't want to be occupied, no people do.

Your logic, of which very little exists, has caused you to make some very irrelevant connections; how does what I said in any way say that I spend too much time behind my computer? LOL, you morons who get sonned and come back under new identities make me laugh. I bet you're one of my students, and class seems to be in session again. What do you want me to school you on today, my little special ed student?
Picking up the ball from inside his own half, the pint-sized Argentine skipped past challenge after challenge. Always appearing to be on the point of tumbling, he was miraculously able to retain his balance before rounding Peter Shilton and slotting the ball home for a goal manufactured in heaven.
 

Thirteen

  • Guest
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2004, 01:24:03 AM »
you haven't sonned me yet puppet

a. can you prove that your reason is the only reason bush asked for help?

no

b. all hell hasn't broken lose, 15,000 to 900 is great considering we wiped out one army and now our battling guerilla fighters...

so where have you proven me wrong in this thread?
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #54 on: July 22, 2004, 06:05:30 AM »
america needs other foreign troops
1 because most iraqi's hate americans
2 becease they are heavy handed, the softer british approach has lead to a relatively more peaceful southern region
3 to make it look less like an american conquest
4 america isn't any good at maintaining peace or law and order when europeans have alot more experience in this area as we usually clear up after the americans. and british troops in particular have learnt lots of lessons from northen ireland which applied to iraq

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Montana00

  • Guest
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #55 on: July 22, 2004, 08:42:12 AM »
Well while it is nice help to have other countries with us in iraq, america doesnt need the help.

Wait....Philipines just pulled out their 54 troops from iraq. I dont know what were going to do anymore without their help.  ::)
 

Thirteen

  • Guest
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #56 on: July 22, 2004, 12:39:37 PM »
america needs other foreign troops
1 because most iraqi's hate americans
2 becease they are heavy handed, the softer british approach has lead to a relatively more peaceful southern region
3 to make it look less like an american conquest
4 america isn't any good at maintaining peace or law and order when europeans have alot more experience in this area as we usually clear up after the americans. and british troops in particular have learnt lots of lessons from northen ireland which applied to iraq

that's what i said....but the "teacher" says in one post that bush needed other troops to control the situation then went on to say that no one can control the situation even if they tried... he thinks that he's smarter than the president and all the advisors around him....he's such a dilusional little girl
 

Maradona

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 408
  • Karma: -49
  • Goal of the Century
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #57 on: July 22, 2004, 10:51:08 PM »
you haven't sonned me yet puppet

a. can you prove that your reason is the only reason bush asked for help?

no

b. all hell hasn't broken lose, 15,000 to 900 is great considering we wiped out one army and now our battling guerilla fighters...

so where have you proven me wrong in this thread?

A. I guess Bush just wanted some Germans to grill his soldiers some Bratwurst, the French to bring some wine, some Italians for some spaghetti, etc. Why the fuck do you think Bush asked for HELP? LOL, IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT THEN I SUGGEST YOU SEE A PSYCHOLOGIST BECAUSE I CAN ONLY HELP YOU UNDERSTAND BETTER TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.

B. What army? Did they even put up a fight? U.S. soldiers admitted the "Iraqi army" didn't do shit. If you really believe that we're winning because we killed more people, then you need to use some fuckin logic. You think we're the winners because we killed thousands of civilians? The number of U.S. soldiers who have died is a lot greater than expected. I think 900 lives lost in Iraq for an unjust war is 900 too many. You might see these dead people as "worth it", but I don't. I value the human life too much to say something like that.
Picking up the ball from inside his own half, the pint-sized Argentine skipped past challenge after challenge. Always appearing to be on the point of tumbling, he was miraculously able to retain his balance before rounding Peter Shilton and slotting the ball home for a goal manufactured in heaven.
 

Thirteen

  • Guest
Re: U.S. military spendings VS. U.S. foreign aid
« Reply #58 on: July 22, 2004, 10:59:43 PM »
here's your answer to A again...

america needs other foreign troops
1 because most iraqi's hate americans
2 becease they are heavy handed, the softer british approach has lead to a relatively more peaceful southern region
3 to make it look less like an american conquest
4 america isn't any good at maintaining peace or law and order when europeans have alot more experience in this area as we usually clear up after the americans. and british troops in particular have learnt lots of lessons from northen ireland which applied to iraq

and as for B. they did have an army, it's not our fault that they got wiped out so quick...and as i said 900 deaths isn't bad at all