[nige1]

Iraq Iran

mike777, on 2013-April-25, 20:25, said:

all excellent points.....but I ask what did the scots do? anything? I hope you understand my point ...

No

mike777, on 2013-April-25, 20:25, said:

.. but you make excellent points.

Just examples reinforcing previous posts.

[mike777]

nige1, on 2013-April-25, 20:34, said:

Iraq Iran

ok nigel and what are the scots doing about iran and what should the usa do?

I fully agree that doing nothing is a decision with consequences see Syria when it comes to the scots and americans.

so far 80000 dead.....many many more injured...sarin gas used

again my only point is for us, for me, to turn away means many killed and many more injured.

But do we want to send our children or grandchildren into these hell holes or turn away and hope?

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2013-April-25, 11:49, said:

I have no doubt that the reporters "bigged it up" for the sensationalism, but there remains to my mind a concern that had the victim not had the excuse of suffering from Parkinson's, perhaps his 5 hour stretch in the cells might have been somewhat more aggrevated; just for looking grumpy.

I am reminded of a time when I was in the Army, and Bob Hope came to entertain the troops. Our sergeant called us together and instructed us: "you will go to the entertainment, and you will be entertained".

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-25, 22:15, said:

I am reminded of a time when I was in the Army, and Bob Hope came to entertain the troops. Our sergeant called us together and instructed us: "you will go to the entertainment, and you will be entertained".

black I will assume that at your age...your young age you followed orders....at this time?

otoh did you hire a lawyer and sue?

----

I hope you and others see my point.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-April-25, 20:25, said:

all excellent points.....but I ask what did the scots do? anything?

I hope you understand my point but you make excellent points.

I wonder why "doing" is by some always considered a necessity.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2013-April-25, 20:25, said:

all excellent points.....but I ask what did the scots do? anything?

I hope you understand my point but you make excellent points.

The Scots (Brown and Blair) aided and abetted the US by lying to the British people and getting us embroiled in Iraq.

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-26, 11:11, said:

The Scots (Brown and Blair) aided and abetted the US by lying to the British people and getting us embroiled in Iraq.

ok given I am Scottish part scot....what do you do now ...I mean today about Iran....and Syria......what is your policy? today.....

again we agree do nothing means die. to do nothing means people die...


sorry I don't mean to put you on the spot only that to do nothing means people die.....really die..


I agree other stuff is bad.
------------------------


sidenote I know miners hate thatcher but is that true of most scots?

I read how Scotland hates thatcher..?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2013-April-26, 10:49, said:

I wonder why "doing" is by some always considered a necessity.

jWinston as always you raise a common question...a great question


ok how many die from doing nothing


how many hurt from doing nothing


does it matter?

ok that last ? is the hard one. You decide.
----


my point my only point is that to do nothing may say 100,000 people die since I don't know everything, everything 100%

IK think many believe the answer is zero.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2013-April-27, 22:14, said:

sidenote I know miners hate thatcher but is that true of most scots?

I read how Scotland hates thatcher..?

It's true, this is due to the imposition of the "poll tax" which caused riots everywhere but was brought in for Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK as well as the closures in mining/steelworking and I think shipbuilding which seriously hit Scotland.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-April-27, 22:31, said:

jWinston as always you raise a common question...a great question


ok how many die from doing nothing


how many hurt from doing nothing


does it matter?

ok that last ? is the hard one. You decide.
----


my point my only point is that to do nothing may say 100,000 people die since I don't know everything, everything 100%

IK think many believe the answer is zero.

Mike,

I only know that some 50,000 young men lost lives when the US decided to "do something" about Vietnam, and I know the outcome is that the US did not get its way. I do not think the US can ever repay the losses suffered.

If the powerful politicians wish to go to the front lines and fight themselves, I support them. Otherwise, not so much.

[Flem72]

kenberg, on 2013-April-25, 05:29, said:

If you can keep your head when all about you men are losing theirs....

you must be a drummer.

[Flem72]

Winstonm, on 2013-April-28, 16:41, said:

Mike,I only know that some 50,000 young men lost lives when the US decided to "do something" about Vietnam, and I know the outcome is that the US did not get its way. I do not think the US can ever repay the losses suffered.If the powerful politicians wish to go to the front lines and fight themselves, I support them. Otherwise, not so much.

The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *&#$% politicians.

[blackshoe]

Today I read that the Army has said — repeatedly — that it does not want or need any more new Abrams tanks of the current generation*. The Congress has said "nonetheless, you will have them" — to the tune of a half billion dollars of our money. *&#$% politicians, indeed.

*The Army wants to wait for the next generation tank, which industry will not be prepared to produce until 2017.

[Zelandakh]

Flem72, on 2013-April-28, 19:22, said:

The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *&#$% politicians.

Same in Korea. Nuke those damned Chinese, you know it makes sense. *&#$% politicians.

blackshoe, on 2013-April-28, 22:55, said:

Today I read that the Army has said — repeatedly — that it does not want or need any more new Abrams tanks of the current generation*. The Congress has said "nonetheless, you will have them" — to the tune of a half billion dollars of our money. *&#$% politicians, indeed.

*The Army wants to wait for the next generation tank, which industry will not be prepared to produce until 2017.

Is the factory where they are produced in a marginal constituency by any chance? Anyone who thinks that American military strategy is decided by what is best for the country rather than getting people elected is extremely naive.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2013-April-28, 19:22, said:

The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *&#$% politicians.

The tragedy of Vietnam was that we were there at all.

The ***** politicians had far more reason to want to win that conflict than the poor idiots who were drafted and sent off to get their asses shot off in a stinking jungle halfway across the world.

If we really didn't "fight the war to win", I suspect that the main reason was that those who were expected to bear the costs of carrying out such a strategy weren't willing to pay it. (And I can't say that I blame them)

[billw55]

True, payoffs for certain districts is likely part of the tank deal. But also consider: if they stop ordering tanks for four years, the tank factories will close, all the workers will take other jobs. So when it is time to build tanks again in 2017, we won't be able to. I suspect they reason that some trickle of production must be maintained so that the capacity is maintained. Similar with certain military shipyards.

[blackshoe]

Half a billion dollars is more than "a trickle".

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 16:09, said:

Half a billion dollars is more than "a trickle".

I am thinking in units of tanks rather than dollars. How many tanks is that?

[blackshoe]

To be honest I'm not sure. And now that I think of it, I believe I mis-remembered the amount. It was not half a billion, it was half a trillion.

Added: I just did a web search and came up with about 8.6 billion for an Abrams, so we're talking about something like 50 tanks or so.

[kenberg]

Only when we are speaking of government spending is it reasonable to say "Half a billion?, No, that sounds too small. Must be half a trillion." Half a billion is only about a buck and a half per person. Cheap!