either way, i'm with wasser on this. I'm sick of hearing about new weapons technologies that the government is going to spend billions on. We need to stop spending so much god damn money on war and establish better relationships like wasser said.
Yeah that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that most of those countries would love to lull us into a false sense of security so that they could attack us. That's ok though, we would have good weapo.......wa
it, no we wouldn't, we would spend that money trying to build our little "relationship".
In todays day and age it is all about who ever has the bigger stick, and I would rather be on the side with the biggest stick out of the fucking lot.
it'd be a hell of a lot less money to just put more money into homeland security than to send thousands of soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan to get killed by muslims who would otherwise just blow each other up. Our presence over there is doing more harm than good.
Now this statement goes to the whole debate thing MG brought up.
Learn the proper rules of debate, please. Carry on...
You have a successfully made this a value issue, congratulation
s. You advocated an argument that would have probably gone unnoticed had it been left alone. Too bad you failed to support why this change in the status quo would be in our best interest making this argument void. Furthermore the premise used kind of argues against itself.
You state that it would be a "hell of a lot less money to just put more money into homeland security than to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq" Isn't this a tad contradictory? Wouldn't sending soldiers to these places effectively be "homeland security" in one way or another? Isn't their whole job over there to protect the homeland (The United States Of America) from further attack or at least set up a worthy government to bring stability over there. This would also protect the "homeland" as well in the long run, wouldn't it?
and Reloaded, wasser asked when the last time a plane was shot down by an enemy aircraft, and you replied "yesterday?" so you cant say that you weren't talking about being shot down by an enemy aircraft.
Ummmmmmmm yeah, He was, but he asked it in the form of a question. Loaded, historically, has a problem spelling certain words and expressing what he is trying to say accurately. When he said "Yesterday?" he asked it in an uncertain way (or how it appeared on the page) implying that it was not something he knew for sure. I do see what Wasser is saying though, like he had said, he was under the impression that our planes are not shot down hardly ever if at all, and loaded came out and said that it happens more than you think.
I can see the little debate going on between them but yours seems out of place.
The way i picture this, if it were real life.....
Loaded and Wasser are sitting down in a very exclusive club sipping ever so elegantly on tea and snacking on crumpets. They each are in tuxedo's, each have a monocle, a cigar, a top hat and mutton chops. They are drinking out of fine china and a butler is waiting on their every request. Every so often they stop their little debate, let out a little *Har har* type chuckle and carry out the discussion. Then you come along, wearing a dusty/dirty shirt, sporting a shoe missing the toe and the other foot just a sock, you smell of BO and you are sporting stubble that would make even the most hardened alcoholics blush. In your right hand is a stick resting over your right shoulder and on the end is a red sack owning all of your worldly possessions. You barge into their club, drunk, and begin spewing off profanities and refusing to accept that your view is incorrect. You knock over a statue, a vase and the butler before being escorted out.
That is how i am picturing it.
