Precisely. And to take the argument even lower, if you only make $24k a year (like me), you can still pinch money, put it in savings bonds, and in five years roll them into more profitable Certificates of Deposit (CD's), and retire on that even at minimum wage. Unfortunately, the bunch that expects uncle sam to pay for their lot in life are too busy buying the other kind of CD.
Glad to see I'm not the only one here who thinks that being economically disadvantages is a license to bitch...
So how can people say Reagan helped the economy? The rich are getting richer, look at bill gates, and other billionares.
Get over it. The rich are almost ALWAYS getting richer, and it's not because they're getting some magic tax break. They get richer for the exact opposite reason the poor stay poor: They practice the techniques needed to stay rich. Poor people keep doing the same stupid shit time after time that keeps them poor.
The thing you need to get over is this class envy system, because as long as you and all these people are busy worrying about what the people above you are doing, you're not going to be moving yourself up the ladder. This country is the most class mobile society on the planet in it's entire history. We do not have castes, and your family name doesn't automatically determine your social status. We don't have royalty, nor do we recognize royal titles. What you need to do is not worry about who the rich are, or being rich yourself, but rather you should worry about your own lot in life an improving it - either through getting an education or better money management. Any reason you proffer as to why you can't is nothing more than a lame excuse.
The stronger the economy the richer that rich people get because while sure they may hire more people, they hire them for as cheap as possible the wage barely moves for the average worker, its the executive that benifits the most.
The executives make more money because they and the jobs they do are more valuable. Any schmuck can wag a mop or wait tables, and though it may be hard work, it's not nearly as productive as the guy who spend 6 years in college learning how to manage a business. What you make as an employee is determined by your value, and if you're not happy with how much your making you need to figure out how to create value in yourself.
Until we have a fair economy, making the economy only helps in in the sense that it creates more jobs, of course creating more jobs does not mean higher wages, it means more low paying jobs and more cash for big companies.
Pathetic, here's that word "fair" again. LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Quit whining about it. Your mommy and daddy aren't here to wipe your nose and show you what you do anymore. You need to get rid of your wage slave mentality and get on with improving your own lot instead of expecting someone to steal money from someone else to pay for you.
Nonsense, pure class envy nonsense. Poor economies hurt the wealthy, but they have more cushioning. A rich mans dollar spends the same as a poor mans dollar.
Credit? If you haven't figured out that buying things with money you don't have is stupid by now, then it's no wonder you're not getting ahead. Credit is economic slavery, it's a "Stupid Tax" on the poor that's collected by banks. If you can't afford it to begin with, then don't complain about having it taken away from you when your inability to afford it catches up with you.
Dude, you're pathetic. Basically, you want big brother to pay for everything for you because you aren't willing to make sacrifices. Don't give me this crap about not making enough money to save, because it doesn't happen. I've watched determined people making MINIMUM WAGE get ahead. And if you're making minimum wage, you need to figure out one of two things: 1) Are you only worth minimum wage, or 2) can you get another job making more.
It's not about being rich, but clearly for whiners like you being rich is obviously having more money than you. That's just pathetic. Get a clue, stop whining, and stop expecting the rest of society to pay for you.
It's just fun to make fun of the french. Don't take it personally...unless you're french. I mean, you have the only culture in the western world that would conceive of this bullshit, then actually give it serious attention.
The economy isnt more important than security! What about retirement? stability? Taxes are for stability, security, etc. Its like a backbone.
The economy is the reason the government can collect enough taxes to provide for all this crap! And defending the country is more important for our stability than backing up some schmuck who did'nt bother to save for his own retirement.
They are rich damnit, why do i care if they cant buy a new mansion or another car for their collection of hundreds?
So why is it that you are so filled with hate for people who have a better lot in life? That's the problem with people like you, is that you think you haves should be punished to satisfy the have nots. You spend so much time mired in jealousy that you don't even bother to try and better yourself. Instead you'd rather engage in class warfare and start an "us against them" division.
Rich people pay most of the taxes because they make most of the money, that is fair.
No, it's not "fair". First of all, lets forget the word "fair". Life isn't fair, and it's not up to big brother to make life fair for whiney little pusses like yourself. Secondly, there is no reason a person should have to pay a higher overall percentage of their income just because their income is higher. FAIR would be everyone paying the same damn amount, but that simply isn't feasible. A MORE FAIR solution is that everyone pays the same percentage, regardless of whether they make $24k per year or $24m per year.
Everyone should pay a percentage of taxes based on how much they make,
I perfectly agree with that, but it's not what reality is. Reality is that the rich pay some times as much as 50 to 60% of what they make, whereas people like you and I (assuming you're in my tax bracket) pay on the order of 20 - 25%.
the poor deserve tax breaks because most people are poor, the majority should overrule the top 1 percent.
First of all, your argument that the poor deserve tax breaks for simply being poor is about the second most ludicrous thing I've heard in my entire life, and it's symptomatic of the mindless hatred that exemplifies people like you. So is the notion that ANYONE deserves a "tax break". All a tax break is is a caveat; a doggy treat that allows big brother to control people through their pocket books. If you vote the right way, and pander to the right politician, maybe they'll loosen the grip on your wallet. No, if anyone deserves any kind of break, it would be those people who use their wealth to give jobs and economic security to others.
Then there's this misnomer that "the majority should overrule the top 1%". That is the most disgusting perversion of democratic principle I've heard, and it's down right communist. This country (which is a republic, btw) is set up to gaurantee that the majority cannot EXPLOIT a minority. At one time blacks consisted of a mere 1 - 2% in this country, so by your logic keeping them as slaves should be okay? Of course it's not, and neither is dumping on the top 1% of income earners to support the bottom 50%.
Most people NEED social security, healthcare, public schools etc because MOST people arent rich.
Most people *don't* need SSI, Healthcare, OR public schools. The public school system is a nice thing, but in truth the way it's being run is a dismal shadow of actual education. Kids graduation nowadays don't have enough basic math skills to balance a checkbook or read a contract. Which leads to the next problem: SSI and Healthcare. I spend less on my health care plan each month than most people spend buying the latest Brittany Spears CD. Social Security? It's a fucking joke, and the reality is it's a failed system that's barely solvent and requires a greater burden on ALL tax payers to support it's recipients. Meanwhile, aside from the constant hemmorage of cash flowing into SSI's cut of the general fund, there's no guarantee that SSI will be around by the time I need it, and if it is I guarantee it'll be incredibly bereft of benefits. If SSI is so great, why do people invest privately in their retirement? Probably because even for the most meager incomes, private investments in publically held IRA's will lead to a more robust retirement and secure life than the trove of government money pits with their bureaucratic pitfalls. As it stands now, even with my shitty income I have great health care, and in spite of all the fucked up shit that's happenned to me in the last 3 months, I've still only had to pay out a miniscule copay for getting great medical care from doctors of my choice. Getting back to public education, the numbers show that government is the least effective, least responsive method of providing education for our kids. Private schools do for children at a fraction of the cost what public schools do, and they provide a higher standard of achievement. Best of all, it allows the parents a greater level of control and choice. I've grown up in public schools and I was fucking bored. My best friend growing up went to catholic primary schools, and he was taking TRIG when I was barely grasping Algebra (something I've since picked up and realized was mindnumbingly simple).
Why do the rich need to save money on taxes? So they can waste their money on junk they dont even need?
Who CARES, it's THEIR FUCKING MONEY, not yours, and not the governments. I don't care if they take their entire fortune use it to pay for wild sex parties in swimming pools filled with liqour. The problem with people like you is that you spend too damn much time worrying about other people and what they do with their lives. Maybe if you worried a little bit more about your life and money, and quit bitching about how unfair life is, you could join them. That's even if your goal is to be "rich".
The point, dear friend, is not how much money you have in life. Money is worthless, it's little bits of paper that are only as good as the entity issueing it. I'd like to see you buy a car in the US with a suitcase full of British pound notes. Get that one immutable concept out of your head, MONEY IS WORTHLESS. It won't make you happy, it won't make your life easier, all it does if facilitate the acquisition of material posession. If you're so narrow and petty that that is what you want, then you will spend the rest of your life in darkness and dispair bitching about the "evil rich folk".
While some poor person cant retire anymore and cant get free health care or decent schooling because of it?
You see, therin lies the problem with your flawed logic. Hell, we'll ignore the obvious question of a "poor person" having to choose between retirement and decent schooling. It's already established that you'll rarely - if ever - get "decent schooling" from the government. Can't get "free healthcare"? If it's free, then whats the problem? Personally, I've seen "free healthcare". It's crap my friend. Nothing is ever free, and when the government pays for it it'll always come from the lowest bidder. You can ask people who server our country in the military about how good the "free" healthcare provided by tricare is. You can also ask all the canadians and europeans who can afford to fly to the US and get their healthcare. Finally, this little rant you're on about "retirement" - fucks sake if you can't retire after 20 years in the work force then you need to get off the pot/crack/heroin habit. One thing they don't teach in public schools is the majic of investing and compound interest. Opera Winfrey once did a show about people who became millionaires from poor backgrounds (I believe the title was "The Millionaire Next Door"), and the secret isn't winning lifes lottery. In every case they pinched pennys, lived frugally, and used the savings to invest in their retirement smartly. That's all it takes is self sacrifice and a little (very little) hard work. Instead of educating people and enabling them to provide for themselves, people like you want to play Robin Hood. The old saying goes "give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day - teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime". The reverse is also true. Give a man a fish, and he'll never know that he can get his own damn fish, and he'll be waiting on you for smelly trout for the rest of eternity. That's a recipe for slavery.
The rich SHOULD pay most of the taxes because the poor are the workers of society who allow the rich to be rich in the first place.
Aaaah, the old communist inspired fallacy that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. I'm afraid spouting that just shows your complete and utter ignorance on the true breadth and depth of economy. Let me ask you something, the "poor" (a term I take umbrage to) aspire to have jobs so they can have income right? Who provides those jobs? Other poor people? Sometimes, but very rarely. It always takes someone with more wealth than you to provide you with income. Newsflash bucko: The RICH are the reason the poor have jobs. The money the rich earn by starting, managing, and succeeding in business is what goes into the salaries of the average joe. It's a mutually beneficial system, and if the rich guy is smart, he/she rewards the employees according to what they provide (if they're stupid and work them like a dog, they lose that employee and the revenue stream they provide).
I'm going to make a leap and say that you're poor, or at least you consider yourself poor. I say that because of your ignorant attitude towards basic economics. You bitch and moan about the rich people taking from the poor (an illogical premise at best), and instead of looking for ways to better yourself you look for the next politician who will pander to you by playing robin hood and offering you the government tit to suckle. With that, you'll always be poor, because you will always do what poor people do. Someday, I hope to be rich (or, more precisely, "wealthy"), and when I get there, I'll be more than happy to show you how I did it and help you get started.
Regean did horrible, socalism?
Nice sentence...expresses a complete and coherent thought. NOT. You have know precisely how successful Reagan was because people like you and the people you look to for your opinions are STILL talking smack about the Gipper nearly 14 years after he left office. The fact was, the 1980's was the greatest period of economic growth in peace time in history, even till today. Even the prosperity of the last few years (which can be entirely traced to Reaganomics). Al Gore would've never been able to Invent the internet without the massive funding for defense projects Reagan got passed. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the 80's. I was very young, but I remember my parents had no problem putting food on the table (in fact, a little *too much* food). People were proud to be American, and the world still looked to us for leadership because our leadership was strong.
Socialism is not a bad thing, theres benifits to Socialism, in fact if technology keeps going the way its going, Capitalism leads to Socialism and theres no way around it really.
Is that all you're able to conceive of? I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but Socialism depends on capitalism to survive. Socialism does not and cannot replace capitalism the way communism tried to. The simple fact is that people (much like yourself) are still too petty and money grubbing to give a shit about anything other than their own personal well being. A socialism depends on everyone working towards a better society. In reality, however, most poeple only work for a better self, and when you remove incentives such as free markets and wealth potential - or even worse, punish achievement with higher taxes - then people have no reason to try any harder then what is minimally expected of them. That is why communism fails *miserably* every time it's tried. Socialism may not always fail, but it never fully succeeds, and it traps EVERYONE in mediocrity.
The Regean Economic boom or whatever crap you talk about, helps the top 10 percent of business execs, and people who are already rich, the tax cuts help people who are already rich, so having a good economy = helping the rich? What about the working class? I'm not rich, most people arent rich, how do we benifit by these tax cuts when we only get a few hundred bucks, big fucking deal!
That is easily the most incoherent waste of text I have ever read. I got a newsflash for you dipshit, a bad economy RARELY hurts the rich, but ALWAYS hurts the working class. Let's take a quick EASY example. Motorola's 3rd quarter profits are down because they had to pay more taxes. They don't have enough money to keep doing everything, so they have to cut something out. They decide that a new cell phone they were making won't be worth making, so they don't make it...which means all the factory workers in Tempe and Scottsdale Arizona who would've otherwise been making $17.50/hr putting cell phones together are now JOBLESS. Get it through your thick little skull that the higher up you are on the pay ladder, the more valuable are to the company you work for, and the less likely you are to get laid off. It's called "value", and if you have value and your employer is smart then you'll make the coin and avoid the layoffs. If you're some dumbass who turns a screwdriver 8 hours a day, and there are plenty of you in the world, then you're expendable. That's life baby.
I'm not saying tax cuts are bad, I'd take a few hundred bucks extra any day,
Okay, so THATS the difference then. Tax curts aren't bad if they benefit YOU, but if they help anyone else - especially someone who god forbid makes more money than you - then it's BAAD. Grow the fuck up already.
but when tax cuts happen when we dont even have the surplus for a tax cut anymore, i think its stupid.
Oh my god you are such a MORON! THERE NEVER WAS A SURPLUS! It was a numbers game - smoke and mirrors. It was a projected surplus over a number of years - IT NEVER EXISTED!!! It would only have existed if everything stayed the same was when the numbers were run. Regardless, having a tax cut and having a surplus are not related items in any way. A surplus is what you get with uncle sam takes TOO MUCH money from everyone.
So we are having the war on terrorism. Homeland Security is created (wheres this money going to come from?)
Raised Military Budget (wheres this money coming from?)
Increaded R&D for Nano Technology (where is this money coming from?)
Same place it comes from whenever big brother needs money - the American tax payers. The difference is, defending this country is the constitutionally mandated job of government - providing you with your daily handout is not. It is the job, first and foremost, of this government to defend the borders of the us and the citizens within those borders. After, and ONLY AFTER that do we get down to squabbling about who is going to pay for midnight basketball and birth control for teenagers in Malaysia.
Increased Budget for schools (where do they find free money?)
The American tax payer? The RICH? You love punishing them so much, you can always take more right? Why don't we just tax everyone at 95% when they make more than a $100K a year?
Bailout for Airport companies (why the hell are we paying for this?!)
Because a significant amount of our economy depends on the Airlines for everything from getting people from one end of the world to the other, to moving the mail. It makes SENSE for a government who itself has to rely upon the airlines to move troops alot of times to float loans to airlines (loans which get paid back - it's not like a handout).
If you are so pro capitalist, dont you agree we should have proper budget management?
The president and you, seem to think we can pull money out of our asses without taxing anyone, but newsflash, we dont have enough money to pay for all of this, and perhaps if we DIDNT have tax cuts we would have been able to pay for it easier.
The president, and people like me, have a realistic expectation. The problem with people like you, is that you don't realize that percentages always result in sums which are never an excess of the whole. Spending, on the other hand, stays constant. The *idea* is not to have the government confiscate more money from the american tax payer, the idea is to reduce the spending spree government is on. If you got a bigger than usual electric bill, do you go to you employer and make them give you more money? NO, you find something in your budget less necessary than Electricity and eliminate it.
But no, not government. Your pork happy congressman are busily cutting deals to pay for shit like an $80,000 sled to rescue people off of frozen lakes in Michigan (which, honestly, is Michigans problem not mine).
You want to know what happenned to the "surplus"? For starters, the recession (which started WAY back in March of last year). Then, 9/11. But in spite of all that the economy STILL GREW, just at a lesser rate. Well, when the economy slows down, so do federal revenues. In fact, Bush's tax cut counted towards a mere 13% of the loss of revenue (41 bn). But, because your Senators still want funding for statues of Carl Marx (Ohio), they do the old smoke and mirrors trick and convince you, the unwitting public (who can't be bothered to pinch a few pennies for healthcare, much less actually get off your ass and find out this stuff for yourself), that it was Bush's tax cut that killed the surplus - a surplus which should'nt exist to begin with.
I'm not saying keep taxes raised for the sake of keeping it raised, and I'm not saying its bad to lower taxes in a recession, What I am saying is, when theres a Surplus, lower taxes, use the Surplus money to pay for all of the emergency expenses, war, defense, and security.
Do you even do your own finances? You don't "plan" for emergencies - otherwise they would'nt be emergencies dunce! And another bold, yet to you incomprehensible concept - is that lowering taxes stimulates the economy, and therefore leads to the same or greater revenue. It's been proven to work time and time again when used responsibly. Unfortunately, everytime a tax cut comes along the tax and spend crowd has to spend more to balance out the lack of taxing.
When theres no surplus there should be no tax cut.I mean if we cut taxes while trying to fund a war with money we dont have, this money is coming from lets see the Education Budget, Social Security, HealthCare, etc etc that benifit the poor and middle class MAJORITY.
Your pathetic logic is disgusting. Newsflash dumbass, the top 1% of income earners pay 50% of taxes. That means the rich are paying for well over half of what the government spends. The POOR pays less than 5%. Of couse, your kind prefers to overlook logic and play the class warfare card because it works.
As for the money coming out of other parts of the budget, I'm certainly glad you don't do the national budget. Any idiot can see that the increase in spending is such a tiny amount that it would barely effect all other spending. The same idiot can already see that in spite of their shrill and panicked shreiks, we still spend more on social programs (which don't help the rich, in case you did'nt know) than on defense.
So its taking from the Majority who need these benifits, to pay for the war on terror?
The "majority" does not need these benefits. Its' a scant minority that are sucking up the resources we devote to social spending in this country. The majority of poeple pay for themselves.
Why should we do that when we can just raise taxes and let rich guys likee Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others pay for it? Why should someone not be able to retire, or get medicine over unpredictable events?
Guys like Jobs and Gates are ALREADY PAYING FOR IT! They pay more in taxes in one year than you make in a life time. Do you not yet understand that the incomprehensible sums of money we are confiscating from people for no better reason then they are rich are simply coming out of everyone elses pockets? Do you not realize that when the government taxes Gates to pay for housing for crackheads, that it means Bill Gates can't afford to hire another software engineer who actually deserves the money? Get a damned clue already.
Taxes are for Security,
Taxes are to fund the services which the government provides.
In a world with absolutely no taxes at all, meaning a pure capitalist anti socialist world that you want.
Oh and the terrorist attacks? Rich individualist capitalist types likee you would only defend yourself, your own home using your money to do so, while the people with less money would have less defense and be victims of terrorist attacks.
You could'nt be more wrong. But then, individuals such as you, with narrow minds and little intelligence, are left to their preconceived notions of the world because they don't have the intellectual capacity to see things for themselves. You assume I'm rich? I make $24k a year. today is payday, and having missed a day of work last week I only see $704 on my check. Only defend myself? I put off my plans for starting my own business, and last wednesday I was sworn in as a United States Army soldier for the next 5 years of my life. I will actually make less working longer hours, but I am willing to make those sacrifices for my country.
You, on the other hand, are content to sit on your ass behind your computer and complain about how you aren't rich, and someone else is, then expect the government to give you their money for no better reason than because you don't have it. You're pathetic, ignorant, and a waste.
Nowhere in the geneva convention does it say that they have to expose themselves or their insignia. Otherwise, hiding behind trees would be a violation of the Geneva convention.
It's nice to see how readily brainwashed some people.
Taxes ALWAYS hurt economic growth. It makes no sense to retard a period of growth only to back off at the slightest sign of recession, especially in a free market economy. Just look at how drastic the stock market rollercoasters on the RUMOR of the fed increasing or decreasing the prime rate a quarter of a percent or so.
As to the surplus, THERE NEVER WAS A SURPLUS! It was a SHAM, a PROJECTION based on BEST CASE SCENARIOS over a number of years! Those projections ignored periodic cycles, and did'nt take into account such things as revenue lost due to the recession, then the subsequent expenditures necessitated by 9/11. The only assumed a steady rate of economic growth. It's like me assuming that my paycheck will increase x% over the next five years, while my expenses will increase at a slightly lower rate, in which case I can have x amount of dollars to spend on new stuff. This is also known as piss poor financial planning.
And finally, for all of you mind numbed robots who think the federal government is your daddy, SURPLUSSES ARE A BAD THING! A surplus means the government took more of your money then they needed to do the job, and worse, they are now planning on finding new ways to spend that money. Any surplus should be given back to the people from which it was confiscated to begin with. You want to talk about economic growth? The $280 I got helped me make my rent, buy a new microwave (life sucks without a popcorn button and a carousel), and avoid bouncing a check or two. That both kept me from going in the hole (aka negative personal economic growth), made my life easier (ie. greater personal production capacity), and also helped the north american division of some Taiwanese company get a little bit richer and hire a couple more people to make microwaves or toasters.
"That was the mistake, sure they should raise the budget for war, but how are they doing this while aoso having tax cuts? Theres no logic in that, wheres the money comingg from? Social Security, HealthCare, etc?"
It's actually very simple when you consider that over 50% of Federal Income taxes come from businesses and individuals in the upper 1% of the corporate and income tax bracket. Those are the people and corporations whose budgets drive massive economic engines. When you don't take capital away from them in the form of taxes (and, don't forget, the more complex the taxes the more it costs to administer them, hence the real costs of taxes is always greater than the amount on the balance sheet), that leaves more for them to reinvest in buying equipment and paying payrolls and growing their business. Those expenditures increase sales tax revenue and payroll taxes, invariable coming back to the government in other forms of tax revenue (i.e., although they don't reap as much in cap gains taxes, they find greater increases in payroll taxes). It's actually such a very simple concept that it's difficult to concieve of it's simplicity, which leads many less educated people (mostly politicians) to brand it as "voodoo economics" (sound familiar). it worked so well for Reagan that the resultant economic boom lasted into the 90's. Unfortunately, Reagan had to deal with increases spending in sectors besides the military to buy of the democratic congress, resulting in deficits. And, history will probably repeat itself if Daschle and his band of merry socialists get their way again.
In every thread there's always some schlemeel who says "Been there, done that". It's my turn.
This concept was first discussed in an issue of Omni magazine way back in the day. In that article, the idea was to use quantum fields to create energy fields what "warped energies" around the soldier. The advantage was, no special uniform was required, as this was accomplished by a device. Also, kinetic energies would warp around the field, so bullets would zig around like they were being steered. The downside was that the soldier would have to wear special gear to see radiation outside of the visible spectrum, otherwise he'd be in his own little cacoon of blackness. Of course, as with most cool stuff in Omni, the science was mostly theory and wild semi-fiction.
Fast forward to popular mechanics a few years back, where aircraft skin coated with special liquid crystal elements and photo receptors would display on one side of the aircraft the view from the other. The net effect would be that the aircraft would appear to be invisible even as it flew against variable backgrounds of cloud, sky, and ground.
Also, there was a show on the Discovery channel narrated by Gillian Anderson (hot momma) that had a rather lame demonstration of the same concept, where microscopic elements on a gilly suit type uniform would reflect the surroundings thereby blending the soldier in better.
As for the Anime tie in...the author of this story must be related to John Katz, cause I don't know of any anime storey involving cloaking uniforms as part of an armies arsenal.
For anybody not yet familiar with this stunning piece of bullshit, there are several in France (remember now, this is the country that reverese Jerry Lewis as a comic genius) who believe that the whole 9/11 incident was a machination of the Bush administration in order to have an excuse to increase military spending (to what end only grander delusionaries can explain).
The principle evidence they cite is that the damage to the pentagon cannot be explained in terms of a single Boeing jet, and could've only be the result of a smaller explosion. The real "stunner" these snail sucking rifle dropping morons proffer is the apparent lack of damage to the inner rings and the isolation of damage to a single narrow section whereas the wings should've chomped more of a hole in the pentagon (yeah, cause we all know those wings are like knives made of tungsten-carbide and are solid right).
Their other "big evidence" is the lack of any recognizable part of a boeing in the debris (as if there should be large chunks left over after a plane slams into the ground floor of a building, and several hours of incineration under burning kerosene).
Of course, for anyone who actually witnessed any of this happenning, none of this is plausible, and the morons even considerign the possibility do so only after lackadaisically accepting the premise that Bin Ladin directly works for the CIA (a contentious link whose closest foray into the truth may have been over 20 years ago when we financed and trained the Mujahadin (not any current organization claiming to be the "Mujahadin" mind you) to fight the soviets, which was long before Bin Ladin got involved in the Jihad against the Soviets or Al Qaeda even existed - he was still living the comfy life as a construction Magnate in the very early 80's).
One thing to keep in mind when you hear the outrageous conspiracy theories like this is to follow the power (kinda like following the money, except that only the narrow minded actually think money is the ultimate corruptive influence). In this case, the article is based on the work of an author of the book (Frenchman, go fig eh?) called "The Appalling Fabrication" (not quite a literal translation - my french is rusty). Notably, the book is an incindiary piece of fiction which attempts to portray an alternate reality regarding the 9/11 events as the truth, and is written by a member of Voltaire Network, which is nothing more than perverted organization that seeks to further communist ideals by citing the works of such luminaris as Jefferson and Voltaire.
Personally, I'd be ashamed to post this kind of stupidity on the internet, much less on slashdot in a thread totally unrelated to the 9/11 issue.
The trick would actually lie an an older system developed for bunker busting - the Leading Shot Sabot. In this system (and I've spent the last hour trying to find reference alas to no avail), a hardened shell is attached in front of the warhead (which, in all fairness, becomes a war ass?). As the device approaches the target, a sabot is cast off and the war-ass (okay, it's my word now) trails a few meters behind. The hardened projectile does the penetrating job, and the warass follows it through the new hole. Of course, the war-ass would still get jumbled around, but the shock from bouncing around would be significantly less than actually doing the job and I'm willing to bet the type of warheads used in Grable (being shot from a cannon can be quite traumatic) would suffice in both durability and yeild.
The truth of the neutron bomb was that is was never that effective, and it still causes a great deal of destruction on the scale of the hiroshima bombs. It's biggest effect was psychological. Moreover, early in development it was already decided that sheilding against the neutron radiation would be available to the people we did want to kill (military commanders), and not to the people who we did'nt want to kill(the average joe on the street).
I make roughly $24,000 a year. I work for a living, I don't smoke pot, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for what I want. That's the kind of person who supports G-dub.
You lost the vote, get over it. Even the liberally biased media after paying millions for their own Florida recount had to admit that Bush had a few hundred more votes. This even ignores the fact that Gore was such a pathetic sod that the election even got that close: An incumbent VP running for president during a good economy losing?
And Enron? Let go already - Enron did'nt benefit one iota from Bush's presidency - in case you haven't noticed they are Bankrupt.
Ironic that your pathetic sort, having lost at the ballot box and being void of any kind of marketable ideal, would resort to voting by the bullet.
And it's the Barret M82A1, at least get your nomenclature right.
No there is a huge difference this time. For the first time, the US goverment is drafting plans to deploy nuclear weapons against countries without any nuclear capability of their own. That is a long way from the madness of nuclear detterence during the cold war era.
Every country on that list either has or is developing a nuclear/biological/chemical capability, so your argument is bullshit. Furthermore, we have long planned for using nukes in low intensity conflicts with countries we were even allied with. Your shrill paranoia is rooted in complete and utter ignorance, and your inability to grasp reality is apalling. It is the job of a military to prepare for all possible situations in the event of war, and every country does this whether they have nukes or not. Actually NOT DOING it is what is important.
If you make a defence against a weapon, then the weapon ceases to be a deterrent. Your arguments are self-contradictory.
Your inability to follow my arguments is your problem. A weapon is used to cause damage to something. Having a weapon is a deterent to another person using their weapon, but only if that weapon is approximately equal in capabiliyt to the other guys weapons. Nor does your having a weapon protect you in the event they use their weapon. Having a defense nullifies their weapon, negating its usefulness in causing damage. Defenses are always preferrable to deterrents.
I'm sorry, but is an "upgrade" not an increase in power? I think you should take your own advice.
Not by any definition of the word, and if you rubbed a few brain cells together you'd realize that replacing conventional battlefield nukes with smaller bunker buster nukes is far preferrable. Or would you rather we maintain the status quo, and if the going gets tough we can irradiate thousands of miles of land rather than just collasping a few square miles of underground bunker. The paralysis caused by ignorance (and it's resultant fear) is more dangerous than the actuality of what is going on.
Can you say K-O-R-E-A? How about V-I-E-T-N-A-M?
Yeah, what about them? I'm sorry, are you going to somehow compare anything we did in either of those countries at the request of their governments to the invasion, conquest, and genocides committed by the Japanese in the very same countries? Name one thing that was done in either of those countries by US troops that rivals the rape of nanking.
France lost more soldiers in the batle of Verdan then the US sent to Europe in WWI. (France lost more people in the battle of Verdan then the US lost in both world wars.)
So, we're better fighters, whats your point? Hell, I would think it would be a point of shame to exemplify the fact that the germans were able to kill more French in a few weeks than they they were able to kill of Americans during the whole war.
And who gave chemical weapons to Iraq - The US of A.
Your ignor-arrogance is astounding - Iraq developed their own chemical weapons with help from Russia.
And who taught Bin Laodin to be a terorist - The US of A.
We taught the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians. The degree of separation between us and Bin Ladin is justifiably large, although I know it's fun to pin things on the worlds wealthiest and most powerful nation. Hey, everybody has to have a scapegoat.
And who gave both Pakistan and India the recators that can make nuke bombs - The US of A.
Wrong moron, the nuclear reactors we built were incapable of producing weapons grade material. The Russians were more than happy to help India, and the Chinese were gleefully eager to help the Pakistanis build plutonium processing plants. You'll also notice that the IRBM's they're building now use their respective sponsors engine technology.
typical american can't-see-beyond-the-borders limited thinking
Typical European anonymous coward with your "You have to see in my way because I don't want to have to see it your way" mentality.
The Russians saved Europe.
That is crap. Europe was already under Nazi bootheels by the time the Russian front opened up. The Russian winter saved Britain, but the Russians themselves could'nt defend their own lines without putting guns to the heads of their own troops.
D-day would have never been successful without most of the German troops being tied up fighting the Russians.
Utter ignorance: D-Day was successful because we were successful in forcing them to split their forces between Normandy and the Pad de Calais where they were thinking Patton was about to roll in. Couple that with Airborne drops on a scale never again achieved, which sent swarms of German troops scurrying to and fro, and it was quite simply the might and metal of those allied forces that hit the beach that day that got D-Day overwith.
And despite the Sherman tank. Stalingrad and Cairo and denying Hitler access to oil crippled the German war machine and enabled thoughts of invasion.
And it was Patton who pushed Rommel out of North Africa, and it was the US Army Air Corps that bombed the piss out of Ploeste and other east-european oil centers.
The Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic decided the immediate (if not longer-term) fate of Britain long before the yanks showed up.
The Yanks were AT the Battle of Britain under British and Canadian flags. Some 15,000 American Pilots reinforced the RAF at that point. As for the Battle of the Atlantic, the ships the Gerry's were sinking on a Daily basis were made in American, stocked with supplies, and manned by American sailors of the merchant marine. Our resupply of Britain via the lend-lease act is the only reason there is a UK today.
Last time I checked, we all share 99%+ the same DNA, your kind of US vs. THEM mentality serves no purpose other than to whip up hatred.
That's funny, because you have a lot of the Us vs. Them mentality yourself. Funny how the mirror never reflects the same on some people.
Then contemplate that in my view of things, borders and nations are artificial contrivances and the conditions that prevent a nation from degenerating into lawless anarchy and civil-war can be created in the world at large. That I believe is not a fuzzy-wuzzy statement, but is proved every second of the day by many nations.
It is socialist drivel, and ignores the fact that the diversity of nation states in the world today is the only reason that there is a thin red line between freedom and tyrrany.
Do we need a military? I would reluctantly agree, until all nations can fulfill the above conditions. Until then, characterising entire peoples by the philosophies/evilness of their rulers is falling into ways of thought that ultimately lead to no differentiation between you and them. No, not all things are morally equivalent, thus you must be wary.
Ironically, your attempt to apply western standards on a global scale is the source of most of the worlds problems.
The US is no special country. Moral fitness to police the world? Many would dispute that. The very arrogance.
Arrogance, like the kind of arrogance you display when you feign to be in a position to pass judgement on others? Tell me Mr. Anonymouse Coward, what country are you from that you bear no sins?
As an example, we have a camp in Guantanamo Bay, where you are guilty until proven innocent (not that I have any sympathy for terrorists). Most of the world would consider them POWS and you would have to bring a military tribunal in individual cases in order to show that someone is not a POW, but a terrorist. Instead, they are terrorists first and only. A nation of laws and morality is not supposed to do that. When the going gets tough, Americans drop their morals (Japanese internment camps, anyone?).
The persons detained at Gitmo are not within the jurisprudence of any convention in any way regarding the treatment of POW's. Nevertheless, they are receiving far more humane treatment then they delivered unto their fellow citizens, and with little notable exception, are receiving better treatment than granted under the Geneva convention.
Again, I ask where are you from that your country is free of sin?
when the policeman of the world ignores his own contractual agreements to keep pollution down (Kioto Agreement) because it will cost him money, one starts to doubt both good faith and sanity of above policeman
This Kyoto business is nonsense. We don't have an agreement because we never ratified the Kyoto accords. In fact, hardley any body did, and the only people that supported it were countries like India and China - the worst polluters, and who were exempt from most of it's tennents.
If the environmental whackjobs and commie pinkos who underwrote Kyoto would expend half the energy in helping to develop new energy systems and infrastructures which are less harmful to the environment, it'd do alot more good then just floating treaties around that exempt the worst pollutors simply because they are poorer nations.
Bravery probably isn't the word. The Russian troops, only about half of whom were equipped with rifles, were either shot by the Germans heading into battle, or shot by their own officers in fleeing. However, in all reality the Russian front (and those Russian winters) kept the Nazi's stalled, while the RAF did a fine job fending off probes and bombing raids. However, the facts of history are that if Germany had gone into Russia in summer, then the Gerrys would've been able to open a new front on Brittain by winter and would've been unstoppable by spring.
Who got into WWI after it had been going for three years?
Who got into WWII after it had been going for over two years?
Real easy to sit on the sidelines, wait for the worst to pass, then come in with your nation untouched by the war
Hold on, lets ask the real questions. Whose stupidity jumpstarted these wars not once, but TWICE! Then who got dragged kicking and screaming into the wars. You ungrateful bastards went around making treaties and pacts that you could back up, then through your arrogance and stupidity sparked two wars of European Imperialism (and don't think the Japanese did'nt learn the value of Empire from the British, so lets just count them in), then when Germany - of all countries - stomped your asses under foot you begged and cried for us to join in when it really wasn't our problem.
Your juvenile rant just shows how ill-suited the US is to be the world's policeman.
That's really funny, considering we're having to mop up messes in your back yard (ala Kosovo, Bosnia), while you dumbasses in the EU have spent a good 5 or so years trying to come up with a 50,000 member ready reaction force. Your incompetant bickering and political infighting won't allow you to do even that. Nevertheless, through NATO the US was able to pull together allies in a few months to set up forces for the Afghanistan conflict. God help us if we had gone to the EU instead.
a) The Japanese wanted to surrender but the Americans demanded that they give up their emperor. The Japanese refused so the Americans dropped the bomb. The Japanese surrendered unconditionaly and the Americans let them keep their empereror anyway.
The point is, they deserved nothing more than unconditional surrendor. And there were far more demands then just keeping their Emperor - they wanted to keep their entire Imperial system, and the territories they still held on to in China. What would the millions of people have died for in that war if Japan were simply given a chance to lick their wounds and start over again? Do you people understand nothing of history: There can be no peace without victory. You don't allow a defiant enemy to maintain posture, because if you do they will come back again. We learned this lesson in WWI/II, we learned it in the Gulf War, and we're seeing it in Korea.
b) Why the hell did they have to drop TWO bombs? One would have been enough to scare they shit out of any sane individual.
First of all, the assumption of sanity by western standards is ludicrous: The fanatical devotion they had to their Emporer is without paralell. The massive death and destruction of the one city would have been a major morale loss, but it was necessary to prove to the leadership that we could build and drop more bombs, that we were capable and willing to destroy them completely. Then, and only then was complete surrender an option to the Japanese leadership. War is an ugly business, but when it's necessary you can't be a nutless pussy - you have to break shit until you either can't break shit anymore, or the other guy gives up.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely. And to take the argument even lower, if you only make $24k a year (like me), you can still pinch money, put it in savings bonds, and in five years roll them into more profitable Certificates of Deposit (CD's), and retire on that even at minimum wage. Unfortunately, the bunch that expects uncle sam to pay for their lot in life are too busy buying the other kind of CD.
Glad to see I'm not the only one here who thinks that being economically disadvantages is a license to bitch...
So how can people say Reagan helped the economy? The rich are getting richer, look at bill gates, and other billionares.
Get over it. The rich are almost ALWAYS getting richer, and it's not because they're getting some magic tax break. They get richer for the exact opposite reason the poor stay poor: They practice the techniques needed to stay rich. Poor people keep doing the same stupid shit time after time that keeps them poor.
The thing you need to get over is this class envy system, because as long as you and all these people are busy worrying about what the people above you are doing, you're not going to be moving yourself up the ladder. This country is the most class mobile society on the planet in it's entire history. We do not have castes, and your family name doesn't automatically determine your social status. We don't have royalty, nor do we recognize royal titles. What you need to do is not worry about who the rich are, or being rich yourself, but rather you should worry about your own lot in life an improving it - either through getting an education or better money management. Any reason you proffer as to why you can't is nothing more than a lame excuse.
The stronger the economy the richer that rich people get because while sure they may hire more people, they hire them for as cheap as possible the wage barely moves for the average worker, its the executive that benifits the most.
The executives make more money because they and the jobs they do are more valuable. Any schmuck can wag a mop or wait tables, and though it may be hard work, it's not nearly as productive as the guy who spend 6 years in college learning how to manage a business. What you make as an employee is determined by your value, and if you're not happy with how much your making you need to figure out how to create value in yourself.
Until we have a fair economy, making the economy only helps in in the sense that it creates more jobs, of course creating more jobs does not mean higher wages, it means more low paying jobs and more cash for big companies.
Pathetic, here's that word "fair" again. LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Quit whining about it. Your mommy and daddy aren't here to wipe your nose and show you what you do anymore. You need to get rid of your wage slave mentality and get on with improving your own lot instead of expecting someone to steal money from someone else to pay for you.
Nonsense, pure class envy nonsense. Poor economies hurt the wealthy, but they have more cushioning. A rich mans dollar spends the same as a poor mans dollar.
Credit? If you haven't figured out that buying things with money you don't have is stupid by now, then it's no wonder you're not getting ahead. Credit is economic slavery, it's a "Stupid Tax" on the poor that's collected by banks. If you can't afford it to begin with, then don't complain about having it taken away from you when your inability to afford it catches up with you.
Dude, you're pathetic. Basically, you want big brother to pay for everything for you because you aren't willing to make sacrifices. Don't give me this crap about not making enough money to save, because it doesn't happen. I've watched determined people making MINIMUM WAGE get ahead. And if you're making minimum wage, you need to figure out one of two things: 1) Are you only worth minimum wage, or 2) can you get another job making more.
It's not about being rich, but clearly for whiners like you being rich is obviously having more money than you. That's just pathetic. Get a clue, stop whining, and stop expecting the rest of society to pay for you.
It's just fun to make fun of the french. Don't take it personally...unless you're french. I mean, you have the only culture in the western world that would conceive of this bullshit, then actually give it serious attention.
The economy isnt more important than security!
What about retirement? stability? Taxes are for stability, security, etc. Its like a backbone.
The economy is the reason the government can collect enough taxes to provide for all this crap! And defending the country is more important for our stability than backing up some schmuck who did'nt bother to save for his own retirement.
nuttin...'supwichyou?
They are rich damnit, why do i care if they cant buy a new mansion or another car for their collection of hundreds?
So why is it that you are so filled with hate for people who have a better lot in life? That's the problem with people like you, is that you think you haves should be punished to satisfy the have nots. You spend so much time mired in jealousy that you don't even bother to try and better yourself. Instead you'd rather engage in class warfare and start an "us against them" division.
Rich people pay most of the taxes because they make most of the money, that is fair.
No, it's not "fair". First of all, lets forget the word "fair". Life isn't fair, and it's not up to big brother to make life fair for whiney little pusses like yourself. Secondly, there is no reason a person should have to pay a higher overall percentage of their income just because their income is higher. FAIR would be everyone paying the same damn amount, but that simply isn't feasible. A MORE FAIR solution is that everyone pays the same percentage, regardless of whether they make $24k per year or $24m per year.
Everyone should pay a percentage of taxes based on how much they make,
I perfectly agree with that, but it's not what reality is. Reality is that the rich pay some times as much as 50 to 60% of what they make, whereas people like you and I (assuming you're in my tax bracket) pay on the order of 20 - 25%.
the poor deserve tax breaks because most people are poor, the majority should overrule the top 1 percent.
First of all, your argument that the poor deserve tax breaks for simply being poor is about the second most ludicrous thing I've heard in my entire life, and it's symptomatic of the mindless hatred that exemplifies people like you. So is the notion that ANYONE deserves a "tax break". All a tax break is is a caveat; a doggy treat that allows big brother to control people through their pocket books. If you vote the right way, and pander to the right politician, maybe they'll loosen the grip on your wallet. No, if anyone deserves any kind of break, it would be those people who use their wealth to give jobs and economic security to others.
Then there's this misnomer that "the majority should overrule the top 1%". That is the most disgusting perversion of democratic principle I've heard, and it's down right communist. This country (which is a republic, btw) is set up to gaurantee that the majority cannot EXPLOIT a minority. At one time blacks consisted of a mere 1 - 2% in this country, so by your logic keeping them as slaves should be okay? Of course it's not, and neither is dumping on the top 1% of income earners to support the bottom 50%.
Most people NEED social security, healthcare, public schools etc because MOST people arent rich.
Most people *don't* need SSI, Healthcare, OR public schools. The public school system is a nice thing, but in truth the way it's being run is a dismal shadow of actual education. Kids graduation nowadays don't have enough basic math skills to balance a checkbook or read a contract. Which leads to the next problem: SSI and Healthcare. I spend less on my health care plan each month than most people spend buying the latest Brittany Spears CD. Social Security? It's a fucking joke, and the reality is it's a failed system that's barely solvent and requires a greater burden on ALL tax payers to support it's recipients. Meanwhile, aside from the constant hemmorage of cash flowing into SSI's cut of the general fund, there's no guarantee that SSI will be around by the time I need it, and if it is I guarantee it'll be incredibly bereft of benefits. If SSI is so great, why do people invest privately in their retirement? Probably because even for the most meager incomes, private investments in publically held IRA's will lead to a more robust retirement and secure life than the trove of government money pits with their bureaucratic pitfalls. As it stands now, even with my shitty income I have great health care, and in spite of all the fucked up shit that's happenned to me in the last 3 months, I've still only had to pay out a miniscule copay for getting great medical care from doctors of my choice. Getting back to public education, the numbers show that government is the least effective, least responsive method of providing education for our kids. Private schools do for children at a fraction of the cost what public schools do, and they provide a higher standard of achievement. Best of all, it allows the parents a greater level of control and choice. I've grown up in public schools and I was fucking bored. My best friend growing up went to catholic primary schools, and he was taking TRIG when I was barely grasping Algebra (something I've since picked up and realized was mindnumbingly simple).
Why do the rich need to save money on taxes? So they can waste their money on junk they dont even need?
Who CARES, it's THEIR FUCKING MONEY, not yours, and not the governments. I don't care if they take their entire fortune use it to pay for wild sex parties in swimming pools filled with liqour. The problem with people like you is that you spend too damn much time worrying about other people and what they do with their lives. Maybe if you worried a little bit more about your life and money, and quit bitching about how unfair life is, you could join them. That's even if your goal is to be "rich".
The point, dear friend, is not how much money you have in life. Money is worthless, it's little bits of paper that are only as good as the entity issueing it. I'd like to see you buy a car in the US with a suitcase full of British pound notes. Get that one immutable concept out of your head, MONEY IS WORTHLESS. It won't make you happy, it won't make your life easier, all it does if facilitate the acquisition of material posession. If you're so narrow and petty that that is what you want, then you will spend the rest of your life in darkness and dispair bitching about the "evil rich folk".
While some poor person cant retire anymore and cant get free health care or decent schooling because of it?
You see, therin lies the problem with your flawed logic. Hell, we'll ignore the obvious question of a "poor person" having to choose between retirement and decent schooling. It's already established that you'll rarely - if ever - get "decent schooling" from the government. Can't get "free healthcare"? If it's free, then whats the problem? Personally, I've seen "free healthcare". It's crap my friend. Nothing is ever free, and when the government pays for it it'll always come from the lowest bidder. You can ask people who server our country in the military about how good the "free" healthcare provided by tricare is. You can also ask all the canadians and europeans who can afford to fly to the US and get their healthcare. Finally, this little rant you're on about "retirement" - fucks sake if you can't retire after 20 years in the work force then you need to get off the pot/crack/heroin habit. One thing they don't teach in public schools is the majic of investing and compound interest. Opera Winfrey once did a show about people who became millionaires from poor backgrounds (I believe the title was "The Millionaire Next Door"), and the secret isn't winning lifes lottery. In every case they pinched pennys, lived frugally, and used the savings to invest in their retirement smartly. That's all it takes is self sacrifice and a little (very little) hard work. Instead of educating people and enabling them to provide for themselves, people like you want to play Robin Hood. The old saying goes "give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day - teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime". The reverse is also true. Give a man a fish, and he'll never know that he can get his own damn fish, and he'll be waiting on you for smelly trout for the rest of eternity. That's a recipe for slavery.
The rich SHOULD pay most of the taxes because the poor are the workers of society who allow the rich to be rich in the first place.
Aaaah, the old communist inspired fallacy that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. I'm afraid spouting that just shows your complete and utter ignorance on the true breadth and depth of economy. Let me ask you something, the "poor" (a term I take umbrage to) aspire to have jobs so they can have income right? Who provides those jobs? Other poor people? Sometimes, but very rarely. It always takes someone with more wealth than you to provide you with income. Newsflash bucko: The RICH are the reason the poor have jobs. The money the rich earn by starting, managing, and succeeding in business is what goes into the salaries of the average joe. It's a mutually beneficial system, and if the rich guy is smart, he/she rewards the employees according to what they provide (if they're stupid and work them like a dog, they lose that employee and the revenue stream they provide).
I'm going to make a leap and say that you're poor, or at least you consider yourself poor. I say that because of your ignorant attitude towards basic economics. You bitch and moan about the rich people taking from the poor (an illogical premise at best), and instead of looking for ways to better yourself you look for the next politician who will pander to you by playing robin hood and offering you the government tit to suckle. With that, you'll always be poor, because you will always do what poor people do. Someday, I hope to be rich (or, more precisely, "wealthy"), and when I get there, I'll be more than happy to show you how I did it and help you get started.
Regean did horrible, socalism?
Nice sentence...expresses a complete and coherent thought. NOT. You have know precisely how successful Reagan was because people like you and the people you look to for your opinions are STILL talking smack about the Gipper nearly 14 years after he left office. The fact was, the 1980's was the greatest period of economic growth in peace time in history, even till today. Even the prosperity of the last few years (which can be entirely traced to Reaganomics). Al Gore would've never been able to Invent the internet without the massive funding for defense projects Reagan got passed. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the 80's. I was very young, but I remember my parents had no problem putting food on the table (in fact, a little *too much* food). People were proud to be American, and the world still looked to us for leadership because our leadership was strong.
Socialism is not a bad thing, theres benifits to Socialism, in fact if technology keeps going the way its going, Capitalism leads to Socialism and theres no way around it really.
Is that all you're able to conceive of? I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but Socialism depends on capitalism to survive. Socialism does not and cannot replace capitalism the way communism tried to. The simple fact is that people (much like yourself) are still too petty and money grubbing to give a shit about anything other than their own personal well being. A socialism depends on everyone working towards a better society. In reality, however, most poeple only work for a better self, and when you remove incentives such as free markets and wealth potential - or even worse, punish achievement with higher taxes - then people have no reason to try any harder then what is minimally expected of them. That is why communism fails *miserably* every time it's tried. Socialism may not always fail, but it never fully succeeds, and it traps EVERYONE in mediocrity.
The Regean Economic boom or whatever crap you talk about, helps the top 10 percent of business execs, and people who are already rich, the tax cuts help people who are already rich, so having a good economy = helping the rich? What about the working class? I'm not rich, most people arent rich, how do we benifit by these tax cuts when we only get a few hundred bucks, big fucking deal!
That is easily the most incoherent waste of text I have ever read. I got a newsflash for you dipshit, a bad economy RARELY hurts the rich, but ALWAYS hurts the working class. Let's take a quick EASY example. Motorola's 3rd quarter profits are down because they had to pay more taxes. They don't have enough money to keep doing everything, so they have to cut something out. They decide that a new cell phone they were making won't be worth making, so they don't make it...which means all the factory workers in Tempe and Scottsdale Arizona who would've otherwise been making $17.50/hr putting cell phones together are now JOBLESS. Get it through your thick little skull that the higher up you are on the pay ladder, the more valuable are to the company you work for, and the less likely you are to get laid off. It's called "value", and if you have value and your employer is smart then you'll make the coin and avoid the layoffs. If you're some dumbass who turns a screwdriver 8 hours a day, and there are plenty of you in the world, then you're expendable. That's life baby.
I'm not saying tax cuts are bad, I'd take a few hundred bucks extra any day,
Okay, so THATS the difference then. Tax curts aren't bad if they benefit YOU, but if they help anyone else - especially someone who god forbid makes more money than you - then it's BAAD. Grow the fuck up already.
but when tax cuts happen when we dont even have the surplus for a tax cut anymore, i think its stupid.
Oh my god you are such a MORON! THERE NEVER WAS A SURPLUS! It was a numbers game - smoke and mirrors. It was a projected surplus over a number of years - IT NEVER EXISTED!!! It would only have existed if everything stayed the same was when the numbers were run. Regardless, having a tax cut and having a surplus are not related items in any way. A surplus is what you get with uncle sam takes TOO MUCH money from everyone.
So we are having the war on terrorism.
Homeland Security is created (wheres this money going to come from?)
Raised Military Budget (wheres this money coming from?)
Increaded R&D for Nano Technology (where is this money coming from?)
Same place it comes from whenever big brother needs money - the American tax payers. The difference is, defending this country is the constitutionally mandated job of government - providing you with your daily handout is not. It is the job, first and foremost, of this government to defend the borders of the us and the citizens within those borders. After, and ONLY AFTER that do we get down to squabbling about who is going to pay for midnight basketball and birth control for teenagers in Malaysia.
Increased Budget for schools (where do they find free money?)
The American tax payer? The RICH? You love punishing them so much, you can always take more right? Why don't we just tax everyone at 95% when they make more than a $100K a year?
Bailout for Airport companies (why the hell are we paying for this?!)
Because a significant amount of our economy depends on the Airlines for everything from getting people from one end of the world to the other, to moving the mail. It makes SENSE for a government who itself has to rely upon the airlines to move troops alot of times to float loans to airlines (loans which get paid back - it's not like a handout).
If you are so pro capitalist, dont you agree we should have proper budget management?
The president and you, seem to think we can pull money out of our asses without taxing anyone, but newsflash, we dont have enough money to pay for all of this, and perhaps if we DIDNT have tax cuts we would have been able to pay for it easier.
The president, and people like me, have a realistic expectation. The problem with people like you, is that you don't realize that percentages always result in sums which are never an excess of the whole. Spending, on the other hand, stays constant. The *idea* is not to have the government confiscate more money from the american tax payer, the idea is to reduce the spending spree government is on. If you got a bigger than usual electric bill, do you go to you employer and make them give you more money? NO, you find something in your budget less necessary than Electricity and eliminate it.
But no, not government. Your pork happy congressman are busily cutting deals to pay for shit like an $80,000 sled to rescue people off of frozen lakes in Michigan (which, honestly, is Michigans problem not mine).
You want to know what happenned to the "surplus"? For starters, the recession (which started WAY back in March of last year). Then, 9/11. But in spite of all that the economy STILL GREW, just at a lesser rate. Well, when the economy slows down, so do federal revenues. In fact, Bush's tax cut counted towards a mere 13% of the loss of revenue (41 bn). But, because your Senators still want funding for statues of Carl Marx (Ohio), they do the old smoke and mirrors trick and convince you, the unwitting public (who can't be bothered to pinch a few pennies for healthcare, much less actually get off your ass and find out this stuff for yourself), that it was Bush's tax cut that killed the surplus - a surplus which should'nt exist to begin with.
I'm not saying keep taxes raised for the sake of keeping it raised, and I'm not saying its bad to lower taxes in a recession, What I am saying is, when theres a Surplus, lower taxes, use the Surplus money to pay for all of the emergency expenses, war, defense, and security.
Do you even do your own finances? You don't "plan" for emergencies - otherwise they would'nt be emergencies dunce! And another bold, yet to you incomprehensible concept - is that lowering taxes stimulates the economy, and therefore leads to the same or greater revenue. It's been proven to work time and time again when used responsibly. Unfortunately, everytime a tax cut comes along the tax and spend crowd has to spend more to balance out the lack of taxing.
When theres no surplus there should be no tax cut.I mean if we cut taxes while trying to fund a war with money we dont have, this money is coming from lets see the Education Budget, Social Security, HealthCare, etc etc that benifit the poor and middle class MAJORITY.
Your pathetic logic is disgusting. Newsflash dumbass, the top 1% of income earners pay 50% of taxes. That means the rich are paying for well over half of what the government spends. The POOR pays less than 5%. Of couse, your kind prefers to overlook logic and play the class warfare card because it works.
As for the money coming out of other parts of the budget, I'm certainly glad you don't do the national budget. Any idiot can see that the increase in spending is such a tiny amount that it would barely effect all other spending. The same idiot can already see that in spite of their shrill and panicked shreiks, we still spend more on social programs (which don't help the rich, in case you did'nt know) than on defense.
So its taking from the Majority who need these benifits, to pay for the war on terror?
The "majority" does not need these benefits. Its' a scant minority that are sucking up the resources we devote to social spending in this country. The majority of poeple pay for themselves.
Why should we do that when we can just raise taxes and let rich guys likee Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others pay for it? Why should someone not be able to retire, or get medicine over unpredictable events?
Guys like Jobs and Gates are ALREADY PAYING FOR IT! They pay more in taxes in one year than you make in a life time. Do you not yet understand that the incomprehensible sums of money we are confiscating from people for no better reason then they are rich are simply coming out of everyone elses pockets? Do you not realize that when the government taxes Gates to pay for housing for crackheads, that it means Bill Gates can't afford to hire another software engineer who actually deserves the money? Get a damned clue already.
Taxes are for Security,
Taxes are to fund the services which the government provides.
In a world with absolutely no taxes at all, meaning a pure capitalist anti socialist world that you want.
What? You have to be a dumbass to think that capitalism, unlike socialism or communism, has anything to do with government at all. The reason capitalism succeeds is because it can operate independantly of government. When a government fails, an economy can largely keep on chugging along. When an economy fails, government fails, and in the case of socialism (which is nothing more than "Communism Lite©" if you have a clue about the principles of Marxist-Leninist theory), when either fail, the other fails as well. In a democratic society with a free market economy, both systems are sufficiently robust to exist independantly upon one another. That being said, governments will form where there is not - it is a constant. And wherever you have government, you have taxes.
Oh and the terrorist attacks? Rich individualist capitalist types likee you would only defend yourself, your own home using your money to do so, while the people with less money would have less defense and be victims of terrorist attacks.
You could'nt be more wrong. But then, individuals such as you, with narrow minds and little intelligence, are left to their preconceived notions of the world because they don't have the intellectual capacity to see things for themselves. You assume I'm rich? I make $24k a year. today is payday, and having missed a day of work last week I only see $704 on my check. Only defend myself? I put off my plans for starting my own business, and last wednesday I was sworn in as a United States Army soldier for the next 5 years of my life. I will actually make less working longer hours, but I am willing to make those sacrifices for my country.
You, on the other hand, are content to sit on your ass behind your computer and complain about how you aren't rich, and someone else is, then expect the government to give you their money for no better reason than because you don't have it. You're pathetic, ignorant, and a waste.
Nowhere in the geneva convention does it say that they have to expose themselves or their insignia. Otherwise, hiding behind trees would be a violation of the Geneva convention.
Geneva Convention...what a fucking joke...
It's nice to see how readily brainwashed some people.
Taxes ALWAYS hurt economic growth. It makes no sense to retard a period of growth only to back off at the slightest sign of recession, especially in a free market economy. Just look at how drastic the stock market rollercoasters on the RUMOR of the fed increasing or decreasing the prime rate a quarter of a percent or so.
As to the surplus, THERE NEVER WAS A SURPLUS! It was a SHAM, a PROJECTION based on BEST CASE SCENARIOS over a number of years! Those projections ignored periodic cycles, and did'nt take into account such things as revenue lost due to the recession, then the subsequent expenditures necessitated by 9/11. The only assumed a steady rate of economic growth. It's like me assuming that my paycheck will increase x% over the next five years, while my expenses will increase at a slightly lower rate, in which case I can have x amount of dollars to spend on new stuff. This is also known as piss poor financial planning.
And finally, for all of you mind numbed robots who think the federal government is your daddy, SURPLUSSES ARE A BAD THING! A surplus means the government took more of your money then they needed to do the job, and worse, they are now planning on finding new ways to spend that money. Any surplus should be given back to the people from which it was confiscated to begin with. You want to talk about economic growth? The $280 I got helped me make my rent, buy a new microwave (life sucks without a popcorn button and a carousel), and avoid bouncing a check or two. That both kept me from going in the hole (aka negative personal economic growth), made my life easier (ie. greater personal production capacity), and also helped the north american division of some Taiwanese company get a little bit richer and hire a couple more people to make microwaves or toasters.
"That was the mistake, sure they should raise the budget for war, but how are they doing this while aoso having tax cuts? Theres no logic in that, wheres the money comingg from? Social Security, HealthCare, etc?"
It's actually very simple when you consider that over 50% of Federal Income taxes come from businesses and individuals in the upper 1% of the corporate and income tax bracket. Those are the
people and corporations whose budgets drive massive economic engines. When you don't take capital away from them in the form of taxes (and, don't forget, the more complex the taxes the more it costs to administer them, hence the real costs of taxes is always greater than the amount on the balance sheet), that leaves more for them to reinvest in buying equipment and paying payrolls and growing their business. Those expenditures increase sales tax revenue and payroll taxes, invariable coming back to the government in other forms of tax revenue (i.e., although they don't reap as much in cap gains taxes, they find greater increases in payroll taxes). It's actually such a very simple concept that it's difficult to concieve of it's simplicity, which leads many less educated people (mostly politicians) to brand it as "voodoo economics" (sound familiar). it worked so well for Reagan that the resultant economic boom lasted into the 90's. Unfortunately, Reagan had to deal with increases spending in sectors besides the military to buy of the democratic congress, resulting in deficits. And, history will probably repeat itself if Daschle and his band of merry socialists get their way again.
In every thread there's always some schlemeel who says "Been there, done that". It's my turn.
This concept was first discussed in an issue of Omni magazine way back in the day. In that article, the idea was to use quantum fields to create energy fields what "warped energies" around the soldier. The advantage was, no special uniform was required, as this was accomplished by a device. Also, kinetic energies would warp around the field, so bullets would zig around like they were being steered. The downside was that the soldier would have to wear special gear to see radiation outside of the visible spectrum, otherwise he'd be in his own little cacoon of blackness. Of course, as with most cool stuff in Omni, the science was mostly theory and wild semi-fiction.
Fast forward to popular mechanics a few years back, where aircraft skin coated with special liquid crystal elements and photo receptors would display on one side of the aircraft the view from the other. The net effect would be that the aircraft would appear to be invisible even as it flew against variable backgrounds of cloud, sky, and ground.
Also, there was a show on the Discovery channel narrated by Gillian Anderson (hot momma) that had a rather lame demonstration of the same concept, where microscopic elements on a gilly suit type uniform would reflect the surroundings thereby blending the soldier in better.
As for the Anime tie in...the author of this story must be related to John Katz, cause I don't know of any anime storey involving cloaking uniforms as part of an armies arsenal.
For anybody not yet familiar with this stunning piece of bullshit, there are several in France (remember now, this is the country that reverese Jerry Lewis as a comic genius) who believe that the whole 9/11 incident was a machination of the Bush administration in order to have an excuse to increase military spending (to what end only grander delusionaries can explain).
The principle evidence they cite is that the damage to the pentagon cannot be explained in terms of a single Boeing jet, and could've only be the result of a smaller explosion. The real "stunner" these snail sucking rifle dropping morons proffer is the apparent lack of damage to the inner rings and the isolation of damage to a single narrow section whereas the wings should've chomped more of a hole in the pentagon (yeah, cause we all know those wings are like knives made of tungsten-carbide and are solid right).
Their other "big evidence" is the lack of any recognizable part of a boeing in the debris (as if there should be large chunks left over after a plane slams into the ground floor of a building, and several hours of incineration under burning kerosene).
Of course, for anyone who actually witnessed any of this happenning, none of this is plausible, and the morons even considerign the possibility do so only after lackadaisically accepting the premise that Bin Ladin directly works for the CIA (a contentious link whose closest foray into the truth may have been over 20 years ago when we financed and trained the Mujahadin (not any current organization claiming to be the "Mujahadin" mind you) to fight the soviets, which was long before Bin Ladin got involved in the Jihad against the Soviets or Al Qaeda even existed - he was still living the comfy life as a construction Magnate in the very early 80's).
One thing to keep in mind when you hear the outrageous conspiracy theories like this is to follow the power (kinda like following the money, except that only the narrow minded actually think money is the ultimate corruptive influence). In this case, the article is based on the work of an author of the book (Frenchman, go fig eh?) called "The Appalling Fabrication" (not quite a literal translation - my french is rusty). Notably, the book is an incindiary piece of fiction which attempts to portray an alternate reality regarding the 9/11 events as the truth, and is written by a member of Voltaire Network, which is nothing more than perverted organization that seeks to further communist ideals by citing the works of such luminaris as Jefferson and Voltaire.
Personally, I'd be ashamed to post this kind of stupidity on the internet, much less on slashdot in a thread totally unrelated to the 9/11 issue.
The trick would actually lie an an older system developed for bunker busting - the Leading Shot Sabot. In this system (and I've spent the last hour trying to find reference alas to no avail), a hardened shell is attached in front of the warhead (which, in all fairness, becomes a war ass?). As the device approaches the target, a sabot is cast off and the war-ass (okay, it's my word now) trails a few meters behind. The hardened projectile does the penetrating job, and the warass follows it through the new hole. Of course, the war-ass would still get jumbled around, but the shock from bouncing around would be significantly less than actually doing the job and I'm willing to bet the type of warheads used in Grable (being shot from a cannon can be quite traumatic) would suffice in both durability and yeild.
The truth of the neutron bomb was that is was never that effective, and it still causes a great deal of destruction on the scale of the hiroshima bombs. It's biggest effect was psychological. Moreover, early in development it was already decided that sheilding against the neutron radiation would be available to the people we did want to kill (military commanders), and not to the people who we did'nt want to kill(the average joe on the street).
I make roughly $24,000 a year. I work for a living, I don't smoke pot, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for what I want. That's the kind of person who supports G-dub.
Typical Anonymous Coward.
You lost the vote, get over it. Even the liberally biased media after paying millions for their own Florida recount had to admit that Bush had a few hundred more votes. This even ignores the fact that Gore was such a pathetic sod that the election even got that close: An incumbent VP running for president during a good economy losing?
And Enron? Let go already - Enron did'nt benefit one iota from Bush's presidency - in case you haven't noticed they are Bankrupt.
Ironic that your pathetic sort, having lost at the ballot box and being void of any kind of marketable ideal, would resort to voting by the bullet.
And it's the Barret M82A1, at least get your nomenclature right.
No there is a huge difference this time. For the first time, the US goverment is drafting plans to deploy nuclear weapons against countries without any nuclear capability of their own. That is a long way from the madness of nuclear detterence during the cold war era.
Every country on that list either has or is developing a nuclear/biological/chemical capability, so your argument is bullshit. Furthermore, we have long planned for using nukes in low intensity conflicts with countries we were even allied with. Your shrill paranoia is rooted in complete and utter ignorance, and your inability to grasp reality is apalling. It is the job of a military to prepare for all possible situations in the event of war, and every country does this whether they have nukes or not. Actually NOT DOING it is what is important.
If you make a defence against a weapon, then the weapon ceases to be a deterrent. Your arguments are self-contradictory.
Your inability to follow my arguments is your problem. A weapon is used to cause damage to something. Having a weapon is a deterent to another person using their weapon, but only if that weapon is approximately equal in capabiliyt to the other guys weapons. Nor does your having a weapon protect you in the event they use their weapon. Having a defense nullifies their weapon, negating its usefulness in causing damage. Defenses are always preferrable to deterrents.
I'm sorry, but is an "upgrade" not an increase in power? I think you should take your own advice.
Not by any definition of the word, and if you rubbed a few brain cells together you'd realize that replacing conventional battlefield nukes with smaller bunker buster nukes is far preferrable. Or would you rather we maintain the status quo, and if the going gets tough we can irradiate thousands of miles of land rather than just collasping a few square miles of underground bunker. The paralysis caused by ignorance (and it's resultant fear) is more dangerous than the actuality of what is going on.
Can you say K-O-R-E-A? How about V-I-E-T-N-A-M?
Yeah, what about them? I'm sorry, are you going to somehow compare anything we did in either of those countries at the request of their governments to the invasion, conquest, and genocides committed by the Japanese in the very same countries? Name one thing that was done in either of those countries by US troops that rivals the rape of nanking.
France lost more soldiers in the batle of Verdan then the US sent to Europe in WWI. (France lost more people in the battle of Verdan then the US lost in both world wars.)
So, we're better fighters, whats your point? Hell, I would think it would be a point of shame to exemplify the fact that the germans were able to kill more French in a few weeks than they they were able to kill of Americans during the whole war.
And who gave chemical weapons to Iraq - The US of A.
Your ignor-arrogance is astounding - Iraq developed their own chemical weapons with help from Russia.
And who taught Bin Laodin to be a terorist - The US of A.
We taught the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians. The degree of separation between us and Bin Ladin is justifiably large, although I know it's fun to pin things on the worlds wealthiest and most powerful nation. Hey, everybody has to have a scapegoat.
And who gave both Pakistan and India the recators that can make nuke bombs - The US of A.
Wrong moron, the nuclear reactors we built were incapable of producing weapons grade material. The Russians were more than happy to help India, and the Chinese were gleefully eager to help the Pakistanis build plutonium processing plants. You'll also notice that the IRBM's they're building now use their respective sponsors engine technology.
typical american can't-see-beyond-the-borders
limited thinking
Typical European anonymous coward with your "You have to see in my way because I don't want to have to see it your way" mentality.
The Russians saved Europe.
That is crap. Europe was already under Nazi bootheels by the time the Russian front opened up. The Russian winter saved Britain, but the Russians themselves could'nt defend their own lines without putting guns to the heads of their own troops.
D-day would have never been successful without most of the German troops being tied up fighting the Russians.
Utter ignorance: D-Day was successful because we were successful in forcing them to split their forces between Normandy and the Pad de Calais where they were thinking Patton was about to roll in. Couple that with Airborne drops on a scale never again achieved, which sent swarms of German troops scurrying to and fro, and it was quite simply the might and metal of those allied forces that hit the beach that day that got D-Day overwith.
And despite the Sherman tank. Stalingrad and Cairo and denying Hitler access to oil crippled the German war machine and enabled thoughts of invasion.
And it was Patton who pushed Rommel out of North Africa, and it was the US Army Air Corps that bombed the piss out of Ploeste and other east-european oil centers.
The Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic decided the immediate (if not longer-term) fate of Britain long before the yanks showed up.
The Yanks were AT the Battle of Britain under British and Canadian flags. Some 15,000 American Pilots reinforced the RAF at that point. As for the Battle of the Atlantic, the ships the Gerry's were sinking on a Daily basis were made in American, stocked with supplies, and manned by American sailors of the merchant marine. Our resupply of Britain via the lend-lease act is the only reason there is a UK today.
Last time I checked, we all share 99%+ the same DNA, your kind of US vs. THEM mentality serves no purpose other than to whip up hatred.
That's funny, because you have a lot of the Us vs. Them mentality yourself. Funny how the mirror never reflects the same on some people.
Then contemplate that in my view of things, borders and nations are artificial contrivances and the conditions that prevent a nation from degenerating into lawless anarchy and civil-war can be created in the world at large. That I believe is not a fuzzy-wuzzy statement, but is proved every second of the day by many nations.
It is socialist drivel, and ignores the fact that the diversity of nation states in the world today is the only reason that there is a thin red line between freedom and tyrrany.
Do we need a military? I would reluctantly agree, until all nations can fulfill the above conditions. Until then, characterising entire peoples by the philosophies/evilness of their rulers is falling into ways of thought that ultimately lead to no differentiation between you and them. No, not all things are morally equivalent, thus you must be wary.
Ironically, your attempt to apply western standards on a global scale is the source of most of the worlds problems.
The US is no special country. Moral fitness to police the world? Many would dispute that. The very arrogance.
Arrogance, like the kind of arrogance you display when you feign to be in a position to pass judgement on others? Tell me Mr. Anonymouse Coward, what country are you from that you bear no sins?
As an example, we have a camp in Guantanamo Bay, where you are guilty until proven innocent (not that I have any sympathy for terrorists). Most of the world would consider them POWS and you would have to bring a military tribunal in individual cases in order to show that someone is not a POW, but a terrorist. Instead, they are terrorists first and only. A nation of laws and morality is not supposed to do that. When the going gets tough, Americans drop their morals (Japanese internment camps, anyone?).
The persons detained at Gitmo are not within the jurisprudence of any convention in any way regarding the treatment of POW's. Nevertheless, they are receiving far more humane treatment then they delivered unto their fellow citizens, and with little notable exception, are receiving better treatment than granted under the Geneva convention.
Again, I ask where are you from that your country is free of sin?
when the policeman of the world ignores his own contractual agreements to keep pollution down (Kioto Agreement) because it will cost him money, one starts to doubt both good faith and sanity of above policeman
This Kyoto business is nonsense. We don't have an agreement because we never ratified the Kyoto accords. In fact, hardley any body did, and the only people that supported it were countries like India and China - the worst polluters, and who were exempt from most of it's tennents.
If the environmental whackjobs and commie pinkos who underwrote Kyoto would expend half the energy in helping to develop new energy systems and infrastructures which are less harmful to the environment, it'd do alot more good then just floating treaties around that exempt the worst pollutors simply because they are poorer nations.
Bravery probably isn't the word. The Russian troops, only about half of whom were equipped with rifles, were either shot by the Germans heading into battle, or shot by their own officers in fleeing. However, in all reality the Russian front (and those Russian winters) kept the Nazi's stalled, while the RAF did a fine job fending off probes and bombing raids. However, the facts of history are that if Germany had gone into Russia in summer, then the Gerrys would've been able to open a new front on Brittain by winter and would've been unstoppable by spring.
Who got into WWI after it had been going for three years?
Who got into WWII after it had been going for over two years?
Real easy to sit on the sidelines, wait for the worst to pass, then come in with your nation untouched by the war
Hold on, lets ask the real questions. Whose stupidity jumpstarted these wars not once, but TWICE! Then who got dragged kicking and screaming into the wars. You ungrateful bastards went around making treaties and pacts that you could back up, then through your arrogance and stupidity sparked two wars of European Imperialism (and don't think the Japanese did'nt learn the value of Empire from the British, so lets just count them in), then when Germany - of all countries - stomped your asses under foot you begged and cried for us to join in when it really wasn't our problem.
Your juvenile rant just shows how ill-suited the US is to be the world's policeman.
That's really funny, considering we're having to mop up messes in your back yard (ala Kosovo, Bosnia), while you dumbasses in the EU have spent a good 5 or so years trying to come up with a 50,000 member ready reaction force. Your incompetant bickering and political infighting won't allow you to do even that. Nevertheless, through NATO the US was able to pull together allies in a few months to set up forces for the Afghanistan conflict. God help us if we had gone to the EU instead.
a) The Japanese wanted to surrender but the Americans demanded that they give up their emperor. The Japanese refused so the Americans dropped the bomb. The Japanese surrendered unconditionaly and the Americans let them keep their empereror anyway.
The point is, they deserved nothing more than unconditional surrendor. And there were far more demands then just keeping their Emperor - they wanted to keep their entire Imperial system, and the territories they still held on to in China. What would the millions of people have died for in that war if Japan were simply given a chance to lick their wounds and start over again? Do you people understand nothing of history: There can be no peace without victory. You don't allow a defiant enemy to maintain posture, because if you do they will come back again. We learned this lesson in WWI/II, we learned it in the Gulf War, and we're seeing it in Korea.
b) Why the hell did they have to drop TWO bombs? One would have been enough to scare they shit out of any sane individual.
First of all, the assumption of sanity by western standards is ludicrous: The fanatical devotion they had to their Emporer is without paralell. The massive death and destruction of the one city would have been a major morale loss, but it was necessary to prove to the leadership that we could build and drop more bombs, that we were capable and willing to destroy them completely. Then, and only then was complete surrender an option to the Japanese leadership. War is an ugly business, but when it's necessary you can't be a nutless pussy - you have to break shit until you either can't break shit anymore, or the other guy gives up.