• SeanRenaud said on Jun 02, 2008....

  There are more than four people, easily.  I just don't post a lot, but I comment quite a bit

• crybabylu said on Jun 02, 2008....

  I get what you are saying, pretty clever of your 4 statements you have made.  I think it is great you are a conservative, but surely, you don't agree with everything Bush says and does.........LOL, dee.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 02, 2008....

  Sean - I was going to put you down as a fifth.
   
  Cry - no actually there are quite a few of Bush's decisions and policies I don't agree with. For instance, I didn't think it was a great idea to get into the Iraq war in the first place. But once our troops landed I think it behooves us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.
   
  I also disagreed with his proposal for a guest worker program before enforcement and border protection.
   
  And I really hated the fact that the Republicans spent taxpayer dollars like a bunch of young cowpokes in their very first saloon and got themselves into scandal after scandal.
   
  That said, I don't think that Bush was nearly as bad as his detractors make him out to be. The Republicans now have an opportunity to rebuild and re-invent themselves. Hopefully they will have learned their lessons, but somehow I doubt it.
   
  Thanks dee!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 02, 2008....

• crybabylu said on Jun 02, 2008....

  "I also disagreed with his proposal for a guest worker program before enforcement and border protection."

   

  The above is one of the only things I did agree with!  I can't find one other person that says it was a good idea, I definitely thought it was a good idea.

  I think there is one reason, and one reason only that predominates why we don't do it......LOUSY prejudice!.....they have come up with all other reasons but that is the one, I'd bet my life on it!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 02, 2008....

  Cus you're wrong.  It was a horrible idea and might as well have been open boarders.
   
  I didn't disagree with Iraq, I disagreeed with the timing.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 03, 2008....

  You know curm what is most strange here is that there are so few actual posts outside the lds and swami stuff. A couple posts on storm doors and dental programs and zip.
  
  Anyway. "once our troops landed" they were replaced with mercenaries and contractors. I don't believe they cook there own meals anymore. Imagine. It seems the aim is to outsource the entire operation and simply make it a black-op line item not to be questioned. The whole effort looks like it's ultimately goal is to make Iraq a U.S. corporate colony.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 03, 2008....

  Our troops are still there Shelter, and they didn't cook their meals to begin with.  That's been contracted out and was in the process of being phased out in 2001. 

• sheltercrow said on Jun 04, 2008....

  Whatever the condition on the ground or the force mix the intent seems clear that a fully outsourced occupation force is desirable and would allow the authors of the Iraqi conflict to remain in control of Iraq without official U.S. troop losses. It would be entirely a contractual corporate affair.
  
  I am under the impression you may still hold the notion that the Iraqi conflict was for freedom and justice. It was not. It was a purely colonial affair. Iraq is now a colony of the U.S. and is and will be used as a source of raw materials. Why else hire a mercenary army of occupation that can kill anyone with impunity other than to remove the nasty consequences, like official accountability, associated with official U.S. troops?
  
  If there is one thing I have learned about my fellow American citizens it is that they are easily duped.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2008....

  I never thought it was about freedom.  Not entirely at any rate.  A fully out sourced occupation force is desirable from any stand point.  Even though our military is 100% volunteer they volunteered to defend the US, not to attack or defend, or liberate or however you want to phrase it other nations.  Many of them are happy to do it, many of them believe in the cause.
   
  Fact is that Iraq would be better off colonized, probably much of the world would be.  Certain by an large Africa and South America would be worlds better off under US rule than without.  It's not like the British brought their modern technology and medicines  around the world with them when they conquered.  It's not like the Romans didn't build aqueducts. . .it's not like Mexico's infrastructure is the equal of the US in every way.  It's not like the Iraqi's live in ideal conditions. 
   
  I mean it would be horrible if Darfur were to get US gang violence. 

• sheltercrow said on Jun 04, 2008....

  "A fully out sourced occupation force" no longer assumes a sovereign relationship it is a contractual relationship for conflict which is considered a war crime. Hiring a mercenary army to invade and occupy a country is against international law. Again it is what a pariah outlaw nation does.
  
  Whatever you may think no nation would willingly become a colony of another. But since you are more oppositional than serious in your comments I will place your ideas in my circular file cabinet.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2008....

  International law should be changed.   I'm aware that it's against the law, the truth is our real troops are the ones doing the occupying or atleast their fair share anyway so your point is moot.
   
  The rest of your position while wrong is the generally accepted truth.  Which is that some how we aren't better than anybody else. 

• sheltercrow said on Jun 04, 2008....

  You should do yourself a favor and occasionally think about what you are writing. I retract my previous comment concerning your intelligence. Whatever one might say about you, intelligence is not your strong suit. ...into the circular file cabinet.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2008....

  ROFL. 

• antithesis said on Jun 04, 2008....

  Hmmm...do I sense a political squabble here? This is usually what happens, political debate leading to personal insults. Chill.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 05, 2008....

  "a political squabble" would posit two oppositional political views. There is no such operative nature here. There is me and there is not me. All else is merely a fiction.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 06, 2008....

  The funny thing about international law is that no one can enforce it.
   
  The other funny thing is that people keep saying this or that is "against international law" but never cite the specific code.
   
  Which specific international law are we taking about, anyway? The UN Charter? The Geneva Convention? The International Criminal Court at The Hague?
   
  The United States may enter into treaties with other countries, but ultimately we are bound by our Constitution and none other. The Constitution simply obligates Government to provide for national defense. How we do this is up to us. Whether it's a government employee model or corporate model is up to our representatives. Companies like Blackwater will very likely exist and win government contracts regardless of who occupies the White House because these companies give our officials flexibility that reaches beyond our current foreign military activites.
   
  For instance, I just read this morning that Blackwater plans to open a training facility in San Diego that (stated publicly) will train sailors in the basics of boarding and secure ships at sea. Why San Diego? It's in the vicinity of the SEAL BUD/S training facility in Coronado. There are probably a host of other applications they will train that won't be publicly disclosed.
   
  This facility could also be used to train Coast Guard, Marines, local police and other organizations. If, for whatever reason, the facilities' special services are no longer required, Blackwater could either reconfigure it to other training purposes or close it altogether.
   
  I'm sure most of you know how hard it is for the military to close bases in the U.S.
   
  Another advantage of having a corporate structure, particularly in the case of protracted military engagements, is the ability to hire and retain the best qualified and most experienced people. We don't need reluctant 19 year old draftees in Iraq or Afghanistan. We need experienced people and I imagine that these companies compensate better than the Defense Department can. 
   
  Anyway I don't have a problem with our contracting some aspects of our work out, if it gets the job done more effectively. Whether or not they will get the job done is an open question.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  International Law is always per the United Nations.
  
  Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with commentaries
  
  1950
  
  [...]
  
  PRINCIPLE I
  
  Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
  
  PRINCIPLE II
  
  The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
  
  PRINCIPLE III
  
  The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
  
  PRINCIPLE IV
  
  The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
  
  PRINCIPLE V
  
  Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
  
  PRINCIPLE VI
  
  The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
  
  a. Crimes against peace:
  
  (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
  
  (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
  
  b. War crimes:
  
  Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
  
  c. Crimes against humanity:
  
  Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any crime against peace or any war crime.
  
  PRINCIPLE VII
  
  Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  
  I have posted these threads for the simple reason that George Bush has already been found guilty by the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo of war crimes. It's a scandal that the press in our country does not publish any news of it.
  
  International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo
  
  International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo (cont)
  
  International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo: Verdict Guilty!
  
  Testimony of Leuren Moret for the International Criminal Tribunal
  
  I quote the document here...
   
  17. Verdict:
  
  I find the Defendant, George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces guilty:
  
  1. Under Article 2 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan and under International Criminal Law, for waging a war of aggression against Afghanistan and the Afghan people;
  
  2. Under Article 3, Part I, clause (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and Article 3, Part II, clause (a),(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k), (l), (n), (o), (p), (q) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, under International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law, in respect of War Crimes committed against the people of Afghanistan by the use of weapons prohibited by the laws of warfare causing death and destruction to the Afghan people; maiming men, women and children;
  
  3. Under Article 4, clause (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal and International Humanitarian Law, for Crimes Against Humanity committed against the people of Afghanistan; resulting in inhumane acts affecting large sections of the population cause by the military invasion, bombing, and lack of humanitarian relief;
  
  4. Under Article 3, Part I, clause (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and Article 3, Part II clause (f), (k), (p), and (q) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, under International Criminal Law and the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention (III) of 1949 in respect of the torture and killings of Talban and other prisoners of war who had surrendered and their torture and inhumane conditions of detention and deportation of innocent civilians;
  
  In respect of the transport of prisoners in sealed Containers and their death due to suffocation and filing of rifle shots at the Container for creating holes for ventilation with the prisoners inside; and for conditions at Sheberghan prison; the Defendant is entitled to benefit of doubt at this trial however the issues are left open for trial, before any other court/Tribunal; as the evidence before the Tribunal is not conclusive on the involvement of United States forces;
  
  5. Under Article 3, Part I (c) and (g); Article 3 Part 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l) and Article 4(b), (l) of (n), ( p), (q) of the ICTA in respect of the serious humanitarian situation resulting from the refugee exodus in Afghanistan due to the bombing of civilian population and civilian infrastructure in a country already affected by serious famine resulting in mass exodus of people and death from bombing, hunger, displacement, disease; and absence of humanitarian relief;
  
  6. Under Article 3, Part II, clause(o), (p) and under Article 4 clause (a), (b) and (l) of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, and under International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law; in respect of the DU weapons used on the people of Afghanistan to exterminate the population; and for the crime of "Omnicide" the extermination of life, contamination of air, water and food resources; and the irreversible alteration of the genetic code of all living organisms including plant life; as a direct consequence of the use of radioactive munitions in Afghanistan; affecting countries in the entire region;
  
  7. Under Article 3, Part II, clause(o), (p) and under Article 4(a) and (i) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for Afghanistan, under International Criminal Law, for exposing soldiers and other personnel of the United States, UK and other soldiers of coalition forces to radioactive contamination by the use of DU weapons, hazarding their lives, their physiology, and that of their future progeny by irreversible alteration of the genetic code.
  

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  There are currently thousands of private military contractors (PMC's) in Iraq. The problem lies with the rules of engagement (ROE) in regards to these PMC's. PMC's operate outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and have no ROE's governing their behavior that fit within International Law as discussed above. Just the use of PMC's outside the UCMJ violates International Law.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  Just before leaving office as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer signed Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 which states, among other things, that:
  
  "Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts, including licensing and registering employees, businesses and corporations; provided, however, that Contractors shall comply with such applicable licensing and registration laws and regulations if engaging in business or transactions in Iraq other than Contracts. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Order, Private Security Companies and their employees operating in Iraq must comply with all CPA Orders, Regulations, Memoranda, and any implementing instructions or regulations governing the existence and activities of Private Security Companies in Iraq, including registration and licensing of weapons and firearms."
  
  Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 (revised) [section 4 "Contractors" subsection 2) "Contractors shall not be subject to..."]
  

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  You know curm I find it amusing that I have to provide credible sources for my positions and the right-wingers here do not. I actually don't mind because it keeps me personally informed but it is still amusing. Example...
  
  International law should be changed. (why? because a fellow right-winger say so?)
  
  ...the truth is our real troops are the ones doing the occupying... (? "our real troops" don't occupy anything they patrol security zones)
  
  ...so your point is moot. (why?)
  
  The rest of your position while wrong... (why?)

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 06, 2008....

  1.  You keep claiming that a majority of our work is done via mercs.  It isn't.  Our troops are over there, the majority of our military is there which is why they are doing insane 18 month tours.  (which makes it shocking that suicides are only up marginally, no where near what I would expect)  What exactly is the difference between patrolling security zones and occupying?  Which is false to begin with, there is roughly a 10-1 ration of patrol forces to "occupying" forces.  I'm not denying there are Mercs there but it was the US military that conquered Iraq, and it is the US military that is occupying.  Hense your point is moot.  It's like you're arguing that because there is Brinks Security that the Police force isn't doing the majority of the work.
   
  2.  How the hell do Mercs manage to exist outside of the rules?  I wonder who's sucking cock to make that one work.
   
  3.  The UN has been proven to be at best a stumbling block to progress in the world.  The US should just pull out and tell them to fuck themselves.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  Before you ask any question please at least try to prove your points first. Later.

• crybabylu said on Jun 06, 2008....

  point well-taken, sheltercrow, couldn't have phrased it better myself.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 06, 2008....

  As to the Bush guilty "verdict" - let them come and arrest him. Oh yeah - THEY CAN'T, and they won't. Otherwise, we could arrest any tinpot dictator and their diplomats when they come to the UN.
   
  The UN principles you've cited are not ordinances. The UN HAS NO GOVERNING AUTHORITY over anything, really. All it can do is issue resolutions, declarations and condemnations. To do something that is against "international law" as you have defined it is to defy words written on a piece of paper.
  Internrational law has no teeth, and from the stories that have come up about UN "peacekeeping forces" raping children and using child prostitutes in Africa,  the UN has no moral authority to preach about anything the United States is doing.
   
   

• sheltercrow said on Jun 06, 2008....

  Whatever you say curm... anyway...

  The United States and International Law
  
  John B. Bellinger, Legal Adviser
  
  Remarks at the Hague, Netherlands, June 6, 2007
  
  A practical exercise in dissimulation and dishonesty.
  
  
  
  The End of Exceptionalism in War Crimes
  
  The International Criminal Court and America’s Credibility in the World
  
  by David Scheffer, Richard Cooper, Juliette Voinov Kohler
  
  November 21, 2007
  
  US exceptionalism may have a place in international politics, but this concept has run its course in the sphere of international criminal justice. No nation should ignore its duty to bring war criminals to justice or otherwise shield its own leaders or soldiers from charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The rule of law debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo have been the death-knell of exceptionalism in the war crimes business. Reality is knocking and its name is the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Any claim that the US may have to moral high ground in foreign policy necessarily requires that the United States join the ICC and do so relatively soon. The United States needs the ICC to help restore its global credibility, discipline its own decision-making, and strengthen judicial intervention against atrocity crimes.
  
  [...]
  
  One of President Bill Clinton’s final acts in office was to authorize one of the authors, David Scheffer—who led the US delegation to the UN talks on the ICC— to sign the Rome Statute of the ICC on behalf of the United States on December 31, 2000. That act was the product of years of intensive engagement to achieve Clinton’s goal of establishing the ICC by the end of the twentieth century.
  
  [...]
  
  In May 2002, John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security in the State Department, sent a letter to the United Nations purporting to “unsign” the Rome Statute and thereby remove the legal significance of the US signature. The Bolton letter essentially launched an all-out assault on the ICC through such punitive measures as the American Service Members Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA). In the years that followed, US officials directed a barrage of hostile rhetoric and punitive strategy against the ICC and those nations joining it. The State and Defense Departments threatened to rescind military assistance and economic support to foreign governments that did not sign bilateral agreements with the United States forbidding surrender of nationals to the ICC. These agreements actually go beyond what is permitted by the Rome Statute as treaties that would bind ICC judges to their decisions.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 07, 2008....

  I did't ask any questions.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 07, 2008....

  Shelter - Our Constitution enables Presidents to enter treaties with other nations. It also enables other Presidents to withdraw from them and re-negotiate.
   
  "Reality is knocking and its name is the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Any claim that the US may have to moral high ground in foreign policy necessarily requires that the United States join the ICC and do so relatively soon."
   
  This is just some person's opinion, NOT fact. The facts are that Clinton entered an agreement as was his right, Bush decided not to take part in Clinton's agreement, which was his right, and instead sought bilateral agreements, which was also his right. I don't see how choosing to engage with countries separately rather than as a bloc hurts American "credibility".

• sheltercrow said on Jun 07, 2008....

  An interesting juxtaposition is the AIPAC driven war-hawk right and American credibility. American credibility is always predicated by that group on persistence in colonial power projection at all costs.
  
  That American credibility should be based on such a crude and inhumane monolithic policy is absurd because the world rightfully rejects such colonial power projection as a crime against humanity.
  
  Persistence in AIPAC war-hawk policies has already proven to be destructive in an economic sense here at home. What possible utility does a new generation of nuclear submarines and stealth fighters, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, have in a war against terror? The only possible explanation is that defense contractors are using this issue to fleece the U.S. treasury yet again.
  
  The price paid for the new nuclear subs, quite unneeded as their is no threat to our current fleet, could solve the housing crisis overnight or for that matter the homeless problem. The same could be said of the new fighter replacement program.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 09, 2008....

  "...no threat to our current fleet..."
   
  Not right now. How about in ten years? Fifteen? I'm sure you know what the military's development and procurement process is. We need to stay AHEAD of the curve, not allow others to catch up. The same thing goes for aircraft.
   
  And cutting military spending does not guarantee that that money will be spent on housing. Nor does spending that money guarantee that these problems will be solved, even if the money is spent on housing.

• crybabylu said on Jun 09, 2008....

  Sean---Why are you such a Bush fan?  I can understand why you supported his dad, but Bush jr. doesn't deserve the same admiration as you always seem to want to give him,  and our reasons we keep saying for going in to Iraq, and for staying there is bogus, and it is no wonder this war is costing us so much, with the mercenaries and contractors, and you gotta know their presence is abundant over there. I wouldn't be surprised if when we do start reducing our numbers, they will be there even stronger.

  About the immigration, I meant to say;  "fortify the borders first".  I wonder what everyone would do if every illegal tomorrow decided all at once to go home.  Yeah, I wonder then if everyone would still think it was such a bad idea to have some plan whereby they can be in this country.

  Sean---I just thought of something!  Does some of your bias about the mexicans have anything to do with the fact that you live in Southern California?

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  Any tax dollars not consumed by the military is spending well done. Let the future take care of itself. As of last month the Chinese passed the United States in manufacturing technology. All technology has as it's root manufacturing technology. I would predict that a world class manufacturing technology base could eventually solve whatever problems pop up in the future. Without it you are simply pissing into the wind, military technology not excepted.
  

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  When the borders are closed to labor movement and open to corporate movement you have a situation where freedom for all is an illusion. If the borders are to be closed to labor it should also be closed to corporations. It should in effect be illegal for a U.S. corporation to move it's operations to another country to use their cheaper labor if that labor is not allowed to come here. What in effect we have now is U.S. corporations that sponsor and use foreign labor at the expense of domestic labor. Why are corporations allowed to move and labor not?

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  We have a policy that allows corporations to move wherever they like in the world but denies that right to workers. If workers cannot move, corporations should be denied that right too. If you are old enough to understand, corporations were "born" to serve citizens, and citizens were not "born" to serve corporations. A citizen may consume a product but they certainly are not defined as just consumers.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 09, 2008....

  1.  I'm not a Bush fan.  The fact is that particularly on Soulcast if you don't actually believe that Bush is the devil and feasts on live babies every night while secretly plotting the downfall of America, which should be a good thing because America is a corrupt terrorist nation that has done more harm than good in the world that makes you a Bush fan. 
   
  2.  Yes my part of bias against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is because I'm in a state where we witness first hand the results of it.  I've seen the schools where kids can't graduate because they don't speak english. 
   
  3.  I'm not sure that there is a good reason to say that tax dollars not spent on the military is well spent money.  Enough technology (like the fucking internet) are things that came out of military spending.  A military base is usually great for the surrounding area's economy as well.  If Clinton hadn't undercut our military so much we might not be having some of the problems  we're having today.
   
  4. The reason why labor can't move is because they aren't citizens.  This is really simple and I know you're not too stupid to grasp that simple distinction.  It's not illegal for the labor to file for a green card.  They can't just show up.
   
  5. If all of the illegals were up and go home prices on produce would increase for a I think the current estimate is  they'd on average go up about a quarter in price but I'll see if I can dig up the exact stats.  Of course that is based on current technology, thatnks to illegals agriculture hasn't significantly upgraded it equipment in nearly fifty years. 
   
  6. Corporations wouldn't be moving over seas if it weren't for libs anyway.  But that's a side issue anyway.  The bottom line is that if corporations weren't allowed to move the US economy would shatter, the world economy would likely follow suit but that is difficult to prove one way or another.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  Tax dollars spent on the military are wasted because military hardware are of no use to the real productive base of the economy. A fighter, tank or artillery piece is just expensive junk. As for the Internet I would guess that it's development might have happened sooner if not for the billion of dollars wasted every year on the military.
  
  Approximately 522,000,000,000 dollars per year for defense. For just a 30% cut in that budget you get...
  
  For 137,600,000,000 billion [the cost of the Iraq War in FY2007] you could get 40,554,560 People with Health Care for One Year OR 142,451,458 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR 2,971,922 Public Safety Officers for One year OR 2,359,700 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year OR 21,273,964 Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR 1,070,377 Affordable Housing Units OR 60,647,465 Children with Health Care for One Year OR 18,882,942 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR 2,260,370 Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR 1,988,080 Port Container Inspectors for One year.
  
  The numbers are staggering because the problems caused by too much military spending are staggering.
  
  To put the level of U.S. Defense Spending in perspective.
  • $19 billion is the annual shortfall to eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally.
  • $12 billion is the annual shortfall to provide education for every kid on earth.
  • $15 billion is the annual shortfall to provide access to water and sanitation.
  • $23 billion is the annual shortfall to reverse the spread of AIDS and Malaria.
  Source: World Bank

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  My example was to highlight the fact that the conditions for labor and corporations the not the same. If labor cannot, in a practical sense, move then corporations should not be allowed to move. It's very simple. "corporations were "born" to serve citizens, ... citizens were not "born" to serve corporations."
  
  Your last item #6 is complete nonsense.
  
  Neoliberal policy has nothing to do with liberalism. Neoliberalism is a political movement that espouses economic liberalism. Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty.
  
  If "corporations weren't allowed to move the US economy would shatter"? Hardly. That is not how the game is played. Corporations would mutate into something far better for citizens than what we have today.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  Curm: "And cutting military spending does not guarantee that that money will be spent on housing."
  
  What it does is guarantee it is "available" to be spent on non-military projects and, by inference, it guarantees that it is not wasted on the military. If it is never "available" how can you tell what it might or might not do? Any money not spent on the military is money well spent. Common corruption is less wasteful than military spending.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 09, 2008....

  1.  Actually it's very probably that with out the military "wasting" money that the internet would never have been born.  It's usually used to justify socialism because when people who need to make money to keep their jobs invest they don't do it in things they perceive to be pipe dreams.  It certainly would have happened eventually.
   
  2. A 30% cut is a pretty big cut, what exactly in the military would you cut for that?  It is important because for better or for worse military bases are often the life blood of the communities they are a part of. 
   
  3.  What makes you believe that corporations would mutate into something useful.  Lets look at this logically.  If we DON'T open plants over seas and take advantage of the lower wages somebody else will.  We'll do what has already happened to this country, we'll become an importer rather than an exporter.
   
  Sure you can tarrif the ever loving shit out of other nations but at what point do they start playing the same game back with us?  Ever hear of a thing called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.  http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm
   
  Its simply 6th grade economics.  People will buy cheap stuff when they can, if they can get things cheaper from a company over seas (say Japan or China) they will.  Bottom line.  So if you tell a company X that they can't move their plant to take advantage of cheap labor in some third world hell hole, then Company Y will open up there doing the same fucking job and sell it here undercutting Company X.  The ONLY answers are tariffs or refusing to import entirely.  Unless you have a magic third answer.
   
  If you want the labor to come here, then you can eliminate the minimum wage but I doubt you're going to do that. 
   
  The US economy would shatter under your idea and I've just displayed why.
   
  4. To call military spending a waste is at best foolish.  One need only look at the Middle East, South America, Africa or even China and Tibet to know that the barbarians are still at the gates.  Put down your weapons and see how long your freedom lasts.
   
   

• sheltercrow said on Jun 09, 2008....

  You wax absurd and lose my interest. Later.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 11, 2008....

  Yeah OK Let's close down our base at Ramstein in Germany and watch unemployment in that whole region spike. Let's do the same at Aviano, at Baku, in Okinawa and a whole host of other countries and see how many friends we keep.
   
  The military is one sure way we help maintain not just security partnerships, but economic cooperation. Believe it or not, our soldiers also provide a great deal of humanitarian relief. Far more in fact that the peace corps. They learn more about other cultures and create more interpersonal relationships with regular folks all around the world far more than any diplomatic corps or student exchange program.
   
  Cutting the military budget would have a whole host of negative unintended consequences, abroad as well as at home. I hardly find that proposition boring.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 11, 2008....

  You have to understand Cur, Shelter gets bored when it becomes obvious that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

• sheltercrow said on Jun 12, 2008....

  SR: The creation of the Internet via military research and welfare based on military spending are red herrings and are of no interest to me. If neither had happened they would not be missed.
  
  That you have the impression that corporations naturally rule the world for the good of mankind is merely a reflection of the strength of corporate propaganda and not reality. No red herring there just stupidity.
  
  Ditto for the American military. Stupidity.
  
  Curm: Spend U.S. tax dollars to reduce unemployment in a foreign country? Again stupidity reigns supreme.
  
  I haven't a clue where you get your stuff but the U.S. soldier is universally despised around the world as a reflection of the consequences of U.S. foreign policy on same.
  
  Oh... except for the 'welfare benefits' foreigners derive from our overseas bases. Since we neglect welfare for our own population why on earth should we care for a foreigners welfare? Red herring and stupidity.
  
  You wax absurd and lose my interest again. These excuses have been floated for 30 years and have never been taken seriously. Most of it is merely 'fluff for the flakes' to help try and justify military spending. Later.

Comment on "Perhaps Soulcast is Really Just Four People"

Currently tagged	soulcast Swami (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment