Debt as % of GDP is flawed measure, others are harder to compare/find but yes, there's a bit of irony (meaning opposite to nominal) - US super power (debt super power).
indeed. If the damn democrats would let the republicans pay off the debt it wouldn't be so bad. Every time the republicans bring up "cutting the fat" to pay off the debt the democrats stonewall all attempts. I suppose to be fair all the cutting attempts usually revolve around democrat pork projects and don't come close to the main reason of debt, the military. I believe most of our debt comes from wars. Start a war... barrow money. The latest one just was the most impressive debt hike. Any time military funding gets cut(mostly by democrats) the funds get stuffed into other projects instead of paying down debt. I forgot to mention another part of the debt... SSI. ohh man.. that is the elephant in the room now ain't it?
Protip: Make war against some country which can pay for your military expenses as repayment rather one whichs fuckpoor and was paying already with oil anyway ...
Nov. 2000 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html March 2003 http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1967340_1967342_1967398,00.html coincidence?
Coincidence comes from the word coincide, which means that they happened at or near the same time. I would not find a difference of 30 months to be anywhere close to coinciding, I wouldn't even consider it to be related. Perhaps if the Republicans didn't do an equal if not greater amount of brinksmanship and would look at cutting things other than welfare and government services, a solution might arise. Also, both sides of the issue do pork barreling, I don't see why you'd only mention the Democrats about that. I agree though that we do too much military spending. Both sides tend to be too chickenshit (Democrats) or stupid (Republicans) to get anything useful done.
yes sure, they went there because they really believed that saddam had WMDs and centrifuges for uranim enrichment hidden in trucks. or no wait, i know a better one. they went there to liberate the poor oppressed iraki people hahaha
I got you one better. They went down because they were dumbasses. It's easy to attribute to greed or malice, but it tends to make more sense and is just as easy to attribute it to stupidity.
them working out a very sophisticated plan to scam a whole bunch of countries, including their own, and succeeding contradicts stupidity.
To be fair flasche, the Iraqi people did not have a good time under Saddam, especially the Kurds. The Iraq war may have been poorly executed, and done for the wrong reasons, but there are far worse things that have happened. Generally speaking, after a few more years, the country will be in a considerably better state than before. If the war hadn't happened, Iraq would be another Syria right now.
i doubt that for the majority much changes, its mainly actors changing and probably this even isnt fully true - i also question that id be possible differntly now, what the future holds is uncertain. how it could have been done differently is unimportant now that america started the war against international laws*. also i didnt mean to defend saddam, any non democratic system deserves to be overthrown. its just "western states" interference only shows when their economic interrests are at stake. then they suddently turn super moralic and appeal to the emotions of their populations. *at least it showed what joke the UN actually is (sadly)
So because the world stands to benefit from a country that actually trades, they shouldn't take care of shit like that because it's morally wrong to invade if there's any possibility of economic gain? Really?
no, its morally wrong to invade because there is possibilty of economic gain and lying about it to half the world. not implying it was different at any point in history ... edit: just because you happen to do good out of bad intentions, doesnt make the intentions any better ...
So because the intentions weren't necessarily right for the invasion, the people should instead be under iron-fisted rule with no human rights, under Saddam? Really flasche? Who gives a shit why. The end results are what matter, nothing else.
no, i previously said, any non-democratic regime deserves to be overthrown. i just refuse to see how one evil justifies another evil - a war of aggression is against international law.
Why? Do you think democracy magically gives these people a better life? You're mistaken if you do. Half the countries in the area I'm in now, would be ruled by hardline Islamists, if there was democracy. Luckily, it's ruled by monarchy. Shit gets done, there's no bureaucracy and compromising to get voters, and thus, you end up with everyone getting richer. You can argue about slave labour and shit, but those are immigrant workforces, and they can go back to their own country at any time. They still have it better over here, otherwise they wouldn't be here. Democracy does not solve all problems. I mean fuck, take Italy right now. The current Prime Minister, Mario whatever, hasn't been voted in. He'd never get voted in, because he's not a politician, he's an economist. So instead of someone who has a degree in spinning stories, arguing, and dealing with press and PR, they have someone in there to run the country instead. Italy has since made huge progress with the Eurozone problems. Had there been an elected guy there, someone who could tell voters he'll make everything ok and whatnot, Italy would be in the same position as Greece right now. So my point is, Democracy fucking sucks.
cant say what id want to in a few sentences only and cba to type more. basically yes, but not magically - also not instantly and not fail safe either.
