kotomile

iTrader: (24)

That's an actual beer, too. Had some in Monterey.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Can you paint on gold? I wouldn't think you could.

/Mormonism

inferno94

iTrader: (2)

No, but they are paid by those who consent for them to act in the interest of the public good. Whether they actually act in the public good being another story.

In going into the middle east in the first place there wasn't backing from most of the world thus the participants are responsible for the costs of doing so. If the participants so choose they are in a situation to plunder the countries they are in but that won't make devising a clean exit strategy any easier.

If the majority of the world or even the citizens of a country ask for military intervention there are grounds for cost sharing. While one group may intend to do the bulk of the work going in they likely did so knowingly and should simply refuse if they don't want to absorb incurred costs and losses.

When in a situation like Lybia arises where the citizens are asking for help, if there is to be repayment they would be in the position to make it though likely in a symbolic nature. An example would be how Canada receives thousands of tulip bulbs from Holland yearly as a thanks for aid during WW2.

Besides the next frontier of colonialism is the moon, ever watched futurama?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.

Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production. Yet it is capitalism that today’s peace-lovers oppose and statism that they advocate—in the name of peace.

inferno94

iTrader: (2)

While I agree with the above you seem to be suggesting that the USA should dabble in a little of both and not be a purely capitalist state with comments such as the below one.

You don't state that plunder should be the modus operandi of the US military so what are you supporting? I ask this with the assumption you reject my proposed "UN collectively pays a share of member states costs for military action" idea.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

If we are going to do it, we might as well get paid for our efforts.

The major wars of resent history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones:

World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of **** Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

In World War II, both Germany and Russia seized and dismantled entire factories in conquered countries, to ship them home.

The United States, sent billions worth of lend-lease equipment, including entire factories, to its allies.

Germany and Russia needed war to loot; the United States did not and gained nothing. In fact, the United States lost, economically, even though it won the war: it was left with an enormous national debt, augmented by the grotesquely futile policy of supporting former allies and enemies to this day.

I dont believe in the UN and would rather the US leave it and stop paying to house in on our soil.

inferno94

iTrader: (2)

So where does the payment for policing services ultimately come from? What if no one pays? I'd be more inclined to believe motivations for more of the USA's actions are economic than countries like **** Germany.

Tangent of a tangent/
As you say, the US made weapons for other nations up until the Japanese brought them into the war. I'd find it hard to believe that the goods delivered to allies were sold or rented out below cost. Keep in mind that GM and Ford were building the trucks and tanks not Peoples Factory #67345. Any savvy (if not loose on ethics) business person can make a killing from turmoil and the people running the large industries involved got their share and their company's share. The government buying these goods then choosing to gift them away (if that is the case) loses on behalf of the citizenry but not the economy. I would suspect that the debt incurred was more driven by the large US military action than aiding allies.
/Tangent of a tangent

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I believe this is fault of the military industrial complex.

Did you see Charlie Wilson's War?


Ask yourself why and for what purpose is the US Gov't an arms dealer?

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

Dudes Trump is a smart ************ and you're the one who is idiot if you think otherwise.

You don't go to wharton and become a billionaire and a celebrity by being a moron. He's intelligently playing the political game, just like Bush. Who was a very intelligent man too.

To incite the masses you have to speak at their level.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Bush IS smart, but he cant speak for ****.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

So he speaks to a level of stupid, thus, making him equally stupid. He is quite the egotistical liar. What "smart ************" honestly thinks they can just call a large middle-east organization and tell them to adjust prices to fit a country's needs? So everytime I disagree with the pricing on something I should be able to just call the CEO and say "I don't like that you're charging me $xxx for XYZ and I demand you should lower the price to what I think is fair". Yeah....it really works like that.

Not to mention, he didn't exactly grow up a pool, black child. And for the sake of this thread, I'm going to assume that you really don't think he is politically smart or would make a good politician and are just going against the grain for ***** and giggles.

As we all know, book smarts common sense or the ability to problem solve or make good decisions or social skills. Once again, being in a family of money has it's perks.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

I wish I was dumb enough to become a multi-millionaire. I'm ok with being that dumb.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

agrees.

We just need to stop fighting all these random wars...but wars divert a lot of attention away from other things.

BenR

iTrader: (2)

I wish I was lucky enough to be born a multi-millionaire. I'm ok with being that lucky.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Didn't he go completely bankrupt/broke at some point then rebiult his wealth from scratch?

I don't know much about him, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

It's complicated. He has filed for bankruptcy for more than one of his entities. Many reports show his net worth under $1b but he always refutes those claims and calls such people liars...followed by claiming his worth is billions more. I wouldn't say he has "rebuilt" his wealth.

Also, he is very mature...so mature that everyone who speaks out against him- whether it be on financials or his personality- is met with replies from Donald with whitty comments like "you're stupid", "you're fat" and "you're a nobody who I've never liked".
What a stellar guy

Linky for those who want to read about a few of the feuds...
http://projects.accessatlanta.com/ga...s-042711/#sldr

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_852740.html

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

April 28:

"In the meantime we can't get a ******* school in Brooklyn..."

"We have nobody in Washington that sits back and said, you're not going to raise that ******* price."

"Listen you mother *******, we're going to tax you 25 percent..."

"Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people...It's just very, very sad."

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

I'd compare his style of speech to those of our "urban" friends.

thasac

iTrader: (3)

The Irish? Yeah, you're right.

-Zach

y8s

iTrader: (8)

**** you all. me for prez.