Backwards Thinking

Nov 21, 2009 13:29

A news article I saw yesterday really ticked me off. It's about Senator Carl Levin wanting to increase income taxes to pay for the war on terror. War is one of the few things that is truly legitimate to go on the national debt because it preserves the nation for all future generations and it's cost should be spread out. ( Read more... )

war, taxes, finance

Leave a comment

gillen November 21 2009, 21:45:37 UTC
"it preserves the nation for all future generations"

Only if it's a war for survival. Usually it simply serves to siphon the public treasury into private accounts.

Reply

ofbg November 21 2009, 22:21:01 UTC
This is a war for survival, As I said above, "If we didn't combat terror, what do you think would be the outcome?"

Reply

gillen November 21 2009, 22:26:44 UTC
You think we're combatting terror? How is our war against a strategy going then?

Reply

ofbg November 21 2009, 22:42:29 UTC
It's keeping them busy and off balance so far. There have been no successful attacks since 9/11 on US soil.

Reply

gillen November 21 2009, 22:47:03 UTC
Them? I thought this was a war on "terror"?

As for attacks, that's assuming you don't count the anthrax... or the Ft. Hood shootings...

And there were no successful attacks *previous* to 9/11 on US soil. I guess NOT having a "War on Terror" was a pretty effective strategy as well.

Reply

ofbg November 21 2009, 23:09:59 UTC
Them damn terrorists!

"you don't count the anthrax... or the Ft. Hood shootings..."

Neither has been proved to be connected to an organized terror group although the Ft. Hood thing may have been.

"no successful attacks *previous* to 9/11 on US soil"

Uhh--the first WTC bombing? Embassy bombings in Africa, not within US borders but an embassy considered sovereign territory of the nation that occupies it, by international law.

Reply

lafinjack November 21 2009, 23:19:11 UTC
Bringing embassy bombings into it doesn't help your case.

Reply

gillen November 21 2009, 23:19:16 UTC
If you're defining your enemy by the employment of strategies essential in assymetric warfare, you're going to be at war for... well, forever, really. And the more you fight that conflict, the more enemies you create.

"Neither has been proved to be connected to an organized terror group "

So now they need to be organized terrorists.

"Uhh--the first WTC bombing?"

Not terribly successful, but I'll give it to you.

"an embassy considered sovereign territory of the nation that occupies it"

Then what about the bombing of the US embassy in Yemen in 2008?

Reply

ofbg November 21 2009, 23:58:19 UTC
"you're going to be at war for... well, forever"

Not I nor probably anyone now living.

"So now they need to be organized terrorists."

Organized terrorism is what we've been fighting.

"Yemen in 2008?"

I forgot. I'm old; whaddya want?lol

Reply

lafinjack November 21 2009, 23:18:08 UTC
It's our tiger repellent.

Reply

gillen November 21 2009, 23:27:34 UTC
[plays along]

Tiger repellant? But there =are= no tigers in America!

[mugs at the crowd and points his arms at you for the punchline]

Reply

lafinjack November 21 2009, 23:41:32 UTC
The Aristocrats!

Reply

gillen November 21 2009, 23:54:58 UTC
::snerk::

Reply

anfalicious November 23 2009, 03:13:37 UTC
Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.

Reply

the_rukh November 21 2009, 22:51:15 UTC
Lulz.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


Leave a comment

Up