The wealth gap

[bobblehead]

I had a sort of epiphany on explaining why the wealth gap doesn't matter, or actually is inevitable (hope hoosier comes around to read this)

If society in general is getting wealthier (and it is by any reasonable measure), it means simply that more people can afford more things. When someone starts their own company it only stands to reason that more and more people can afford their product, or at a minimum the same amount of people can afford to pay more for the product. Also factor in population increases and it only stands to reason that the wealthy will earn an ever increasing amount of money. At the same time, most employers will pay what they have to, sometimes more, but never an unreasonable amount more.

If a company with 20 employees doubles its revenues due to economic prosperity they are not going to double the wages of employees...why would they? Said company might pay more than before, but not double, it stands to reason that the owner will get a bigger return and thus an expanding wealth gap. Even if his expanding business requires hiring 20 more employees again, his return per unit is the same, but his total revenue doubles.

In times of economic prosperity the gap will widen....I guess if its too big of a problem we could just avoid that nasty prosperity thing so those rich bastards can't make more money off of us.

[the_idle_threat]

In times of economic prosperity the gap will widen....I guess if its too big of a problem we could just avoid that nasty prosperity thing so those rich bastards can't make more money off of us.

That was my conclusion in another thread. Economic prosperity widens the gap, mainly because the wealthy get a much larger proportion of their income from ownership and investment in capital, rather than from wages, and capital investments grow at a greater rate over time than wages do.

But the flip side of the coin is that the gap narrows in bad economic times, as owned items like stock and homes and capital goods decrease in value by a lot larger amount than wages do (in fact many wages are unable to decrease due to floors such as minimum wage or union agreements).

This is why, in another thread, I strongly disputed an economic report that reported the income gap in America was widening based upon data that conveniently left out capital gains/losses as part of income AND only looked at time periods of economic expansion (late 1990s and 2004-06, skipping the period of down markets from 2001-03).

The report uses gerrymandered data to make a false case that the income gap only widens, and never narrows. Of course, Harlan argued that I lack sufficient knowledge to make this claim, because he chooses to defer to the think tank that produced the report---an economic think tank that has declared the income gap a huge problem for America, and surely is a disinterested party. :?

[PackerPro42]

That's how it worked in the great depression. 5% of the nation's population controlled 95% of the nations wealth.

[the_idle_threat]

That's how it worked in the great depression. 5% of the nation's population controlled 95% of the nations wealth.

Source?

And in any case, there were many contributing causes to the great depression. There was massive fraud and incompetence in the financial sector that led to bank failures and the stock market crash, there was drought and crop faiilure (the dust bowl), there was massive unemployment.

None of those were caused by an income gap. In fact, the income gap might have been caused by the confluence of these problems.

[PackerPro42]

I didn't say that the income gap was the cause of the great depression, I was just backing his point that stated that during times of recession the income gap increases.

My source is my U.S history class last year.

[PackerPro42]

Just read the arcticle again, that statment doesn't back his theory, but it does bring up an interesting point.

[BallHawk]

That's how it worked in the great depression. 5% of the nation's population controlled 95% of the nations wealth.

In 1950 the richest 20% controlled 43% of the wealth. I'm no economics major, but that seems like a big jump to go through in a 20 year period.

[texaspackerbacker]

Would somebody (if indeed anybody believes it) like to explain how increasing the wealth gap is harmful to people of lower income levels if--as obviously is the case in present-day America--those people on lower income levels are also achieving higher levels of income. An answer might be inflation. However, there has been no significant inflation in recent years in this country. So how--other than class envy promoted by demagogues?

[Harlan Huckleby]

conveniently left out capital gains/losses as part of income AND only looked at time periods of economic expansion (late 1990s and 2004-06, skipping the period of down markets from 2001-03).

The report uses gerrymandered data to make a false case that the income gap only widens, and never narrows.

Well, to recap the last debate: everything Idle claims here was shown to be bunk. A thoughtful attack on Idle's part, but a misfire. The "gaps in the data" were simply due to the fact that census data isn't taken every year, no gerrymandering. And the authors of the report addressed the issue of capital gains - no reliable data - and showed with the available data that capital gains supported their argument.

Mr. Idle is a bad man. Very bad man.

[bobblehead]

That's how it worked in the great depression. 5% of the nation's population controlled 95% of the nations wealth.

In 1950 the richest 20% controlled 43% of the wealth. I'm no economics major, but that seems like a big jump to go through in a 20 year period.

I would guess that in 1950 peoples houses were a MUCH higher percentage of the nations wealth. Now, a casino owner in las vegas controls the equivalent of around 2500 houses (spitballing numbers). I'm only guessing here mind you.

If in 1951 someone created a business and grew it immensely benefitting many many americans he would probably create a billion in wealth....all his....thus widening the gap. Is this a bad thing?

It is no surprise that those that create the wealth would actually control it. But bottom line is, he is creating something people desire/need/use.

The problem is people automatically assume that this widening gap means the SAME amount of wealth is getting redistributed...thats simply not the case. I don't have to cost ballhawk a dollar to earn a dollar, I can do things that make both of us money, ballhawk might earn a dollar and I earn ten.

The guy who invests dollars to build a business paid a bunch of people money in wages. He brought something to the market that people want. As such his "wealth" goes up, but so does everyone elses as a result of his actions.

[bobblehead]

That's how it worked in the great depression. 5% of the nation's population controlled 95% of the nations wealth.

In 1950 the richest 20% controlled 43% of the wealth. I'm no economics major, but that seems like a big jump to go through in a 20 year period.

One other thing I would be interested to know. How does the wealth of the bottom 20% TODAY compare to the wealth of the top 20% in 1950?

[the_idle_threat]

conveniently left out capital gains/losses as part of income AND only looked at time periods of economic expansion (late 1990s and 2004-06, skipping the period of down markets from 2001-03).

The report uses gerrymandered data to make a false case that the income gap only widens, and never narrows.

Well, to recap the last debate: everything Idle claims here was shown to be bunk. A thoughtful attack on Idle's part, but a misfire. The "gaps in the data" were simply due to the fact that census data isn't taken every year, no gerrymandering. And the authors of the report addressed the issue of capital gains - no reliable data - and showed with the available data that capital gains supported their argument.

Mr. Idle is a bad man. Very bad man.

There was no evidence that the gaps came from gaps in census data---that was speculation on your part. The main gap I refer to does conveniently leave out the years where there were down markets due to the tech dot bomb, but includes the robust markets of the late '90s and the market recovery after the dot bomb time period. Gerrymandering is speculation on my part; incomplete census data is speculation on yours. I suspect we'll both believe what we want to.

The authors of the report made a lame excuse for leaving out capital gains (they could have used estimates), and they made a misleading remark about what capital gains would show if included that you fell for hook line and sinker. Including capital gains (and losses) in annual income would NOT show the income gap increasing over time, and would therefore weaken the argument. Much more convenient for the authors of the report to leave capital gains out, which is what they did.

[Scott Campbell]

I suspect we'll both believe what we want to.



I believe you.

[Partial]

You know what is bullshit? That my family who works hard constantly gets fucked. My grandma has a few mil right, and the gov takes 50% when she moves to heaven, and then they take another 50% from my parents for their tax bracket. They get to keep 25%. Where the F does the rest go?

Our government is some shady business.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I believe the silence from the conservative media is deafening. That study was reported in every media outlet, it was widely discussed in newspaper and TV commentary. It's unthinkable that it was as crudely falsified as Idle claims, there would be a response from the conservative think tanks.

A widening income gap is a bad thing in a country that fails to provide health care for so many of its working poor. Something is broken. If you want to look at a country that is dangerously threatened by a widening gap, see China. That country may yet fall apart. One of the secrets to our longterm stability and high morale has been a robust middle class.

[MJZiggy]

They get to keep 25%. Where the F does the rest go?



Iraq.

[Partial]

They get to keep 25%. Where the F does the rest go?



Iraq.

Ha.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl..com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

On all the things the libs want to expand.

[MJZiggy]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.

[Partial]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.

At least that is accomplishing something and not teaching people its perfectly ok to break laws, be lazy, do drugs, etc.

Those programs give all the wrong messages. If you can't afford food, starve. Survival of the fittest, especially in the next 20 years with limited water, oil, wood, metals, etc.

Its not even worth debating with you. You're so anti-iraq despite all the good it has done that it isn't worth my time. Be glad you live in America and can put your children to bed safely at night.

[MJZiggy]

All that war has done is fuck up Iraq and make them not trust us. Don't you read the papers?

[oregonpackfan]

The United States is currently spending $12 billion on month in Iraq.

More correctly put, the United States is borrowing $12 billion a month from countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Arab Emerites.

Partial, your generation, including my children, will be paying for this Iraq War for years to come.

Iraq was never a threat to American safety despite what the Bush Administration claims.

[Partial]

The United States is currently spending $12 billion on month in Iraq.

More correctly put, the United States is borrowing $12 billion a month from countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Arab Emerites.

Partial, your generation, including my children, will be paying for this Iraq War for years to come.

Iraq was never a threat to American safety despite what the Bush Administration claims.

Well, blame the libs who drained social security for that. With the interest on that we could be paying for Iraq.

We'll be paying for that forever too because some DFL decided money grows on trees.

[Partial]

All that war has done is fuck up Iraq and make them not trust us. Don't you read the papers?

No, why would I read that incredibly liberal slanted BS propaganda.

[oregonpackfan]

Well, blame the libs who drained social security for that. With the interest on that we could be paying for Iraq.

[/quote]

Get your facts straight, Partial. Both the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations have borrowed funds from social security. BTW, they are Republicans.

[falco]

shit i wish my grandma left us a couple mil - even after all those taxes that's a cubic assload of money.

[Partial]

shit i wish my grandma left us a couple mil - even after all those taxes that's a cubic assload of money.

ok, but when you get 25% is ridiculous. The government took 50% of it when they earned it, another 50% after death, and another 50% when its passed on. That is 12.5% of the original earnings. That is bullshit.

Would you accept 12.50 an hour when you're supposed to earn 100? I know I wouldn't.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Her family would probably see a million of it. The government would get the other half. Hope you don't have a lot of uncles, aunts, and cousins.
:D

If you had 4 aunts/uncles and 10 cousins, you'd each see about $75,000 of that. Good chunk of change, but you'd probably be pissed if you knew the government was getting $1M and each of you should get $150,000.

[falco]

i actually agree to some extent partial, some of those rates are a little high. but there are also a lot of ways around it - setting up trusts, etc

[bobblehead]

double post, sorry

[bobblehead]

Get your facts straight, Partial. Both the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations have borrowed funds from social security. BTW, they are Republicans.

This is true, but LBJ is the one who broke it open and started the raiding. Honest truth is, both parties suck, gov't spending is never efficient, just the nature of the beast.

Iraq had to be done, we weren't left with a big choice. You can say they weren't a threat, but it depends on how you mean that....were they gonna attack us? No, but saddam was paying suicide bombers in Israel, and he was cozying up to Iran as they were both working towards becoming nuclear. There was evidence that Iraq wanted to hellp someone smuggle a dirty bomb into the US.

We spent a shitload of money there, no doubt. Again, the gov't doesn't do anything efficiently. We botched the midgame and we just aren't good at nation building, but it is coming along. We can debate a lot of things we could have done better, you can say we shouldn't have gone, but its just not realistic. Letting religious zealots run roughshod around the middle east isn't cool, and they have the resources to do damage. They were left unchecked through 8 years of clinton (sort of, billy did drop some bombs on them when the monica heat got intense). North Korea was easy to handle after clinton helped them become nuclear, we just stifled them economically, that doesn't work with oil producing countries though.

Last point, 75% of the budget is locked into spending on programs created by the left. 59 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities are on the books due to the left. To try and compare republicans to the left is kinda silly. The current republicans are spend happy, no doubt, but the problems we face are due to long standing liberal policies.

[Harlan Huckleby]

saddam was paying suicide bombers in Israel, and he was cozying up to Iran as they were both working towards becoming nuclear. There was evidence that Iraq wanted to hellp someone smuggle a dirty bomb into the US.

Saddam supprting suicide bombers in Israel is not a reason for us to go to war. Your theory about Iraq & Iran jointly cooperating on nuclear weapons is ridiculous. The dirty bomb theory - maybe. But how is Iraq different than Libya or North Korea or Iran or so many other countries in this respect?

We invaded Iraq because it looked relatively easy to do, that's reason #1. The U.S.'s official plan was to drop-down to 30,000 troops in the fall of 2003. There were many good reasons to want Hussein gone: the record of weapons inspections there was not as effective as people claim now. Hussein had a pattern of invading and intimidating neighbors, and his likely heirs didn't look any better. We left behind a ruined country after the first gulf war and ten years of sanctions. And the idea of creating a democracy in the mideast was convincing to many.

[bobblehead]

I'm not discounting what you say harlen, you are well informed and realistic on this issue. The only place I disagree with you is I feel we had to intervene and set them back.

The reason we didn't do it with NKorea is they are poor so we could use sanctions and economics...they have no oil.

The reason we didn't do it with Iran is they are bigger and more powerful, it would have been more difficult. So we chose Iraq cuz joe public knew saddam..selling him as the bad guy was easier, thats all true. We also picked iraq because iran was getting friendly and it dealt them a blow, we now are working on democracies on both sides.

If we had left the entire region unchecked and not worried about any of it, we would have a bigger problem right now.

[Bretsky]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.


Anti American :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

If we had left the entire region unchecked and not worried about any of it, we would have a bigger problem right now.

I have a hunch this is correct. But we sure have paid a terrible price in damaged relations, death, wounded people, dollars now and into the future.

Having Hussein in power would be a major threat. The option of containing him with sanctions really was not working, he had stopped cooperating with weapons inspectors, only relented when there were 100,000 troops sittiing on his border.

IF I could roll back the clock, I would DEFINITELY not do the invasion. We didn't have the international support, resources, or strategy to pull off the nation rebuilding. If that support could be pulled together, ok.

But I'm still hoping for a long term success.

[bobblehead]

Having Hussein in power would be a major threat.

LMAO, I read this and thought you meant obama.....guess the right wing radio is getting to me.

[MJZiggy]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.


Anti American :lol:

What? I'd like my American money to stay in America, thanks. 8-)

(disclaimer: just because I detest the war doesn't mean I don't support our troops and what their idiot leader sent them to try and accomplish without the proper troop levels or support from above.

[Partial]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.


Anti American :lol:

What? I'd like my American money to stay in America, thanks. 8-)

(disclaimer: just because I detest the war doesn't mean I don't support our troops and what their idiot leader sent them to try and accomplish without the proper troop levels or support from above.

Just be glad you lived in a country where you're allowed to say something like that. You can now in Iraq. Several years ago your children would have been raped, you would have been tortured and then gased. Pretty picture, eh.

[MJZiggy]

If you will recall, we fought for our own freedom of speech in this country. And the Kurds didn't get gassed for saying they wanted their tax money to stay domestic. They got gassed for being Kurds and wanting autonomy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.


Anti American :lol:

What? I'd like my American money to stay in America, thanks. 8-)

(disclaimer: just because I detest the war doesn't mean I don't support our troops and what their idiot leader sent them to try and accomplish without the proper troop levels or support from above.

Just be glad you lived in a country where you're allowed to say something like that. You can now in Iraq. Several years ago your children would have been raped, you would have been tortured and then gased. Pretty picture, eh.

And that makes Iraq different from the multitudes of other countries that do exactly the same.

Will you be leading the charge to save them as well?

[Partial]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.


Anti American :lol:

What? I'd like my American money to stay in America, thanks. 8-)

(disclaimer: just because I detest the war doesn't mean I don't support our troops and what their idiot leader sent them to try and accomplish without the proper troop levels or support from above.

Just be glad you lived in a country where you're allowed to say something like that. You can now in Iraq. Several years ago your children would have been raped, you would have been tortured and then gased. Pretty picture, eh.

And that makes Iraq different from the multitudes of other countries that do exactly the same.

Will you be leading the charge to save them as well?

If they start slaughtering their own people, then yes. Funny, how quick everyone is to bitch about civil rights in China yet when we stand up for Iraqis right we are bombing for oil!!!!!!!!

[BallHawk]

Everybody should be like Switzerland and stay out of other countries' affairs.

[Partial]

Everybody should be like Switzerland and stay out of other countries' affairs.

I agree, but unfortunately that is unrealistic. As the global super power it is our responsibility to maintain peace.

Historically, the republicans have been brought in to end conflicts, but in this case the time to hesitate is (was) through.

[BallHawk]

Everybody should be like Switzerland and stay out of other countries' affairs.

I agree, but unfortunately that is unrealistic. As the global super power it is our responsibility to maintain peace.

And that's where people make the mistake. It is most definitely NOT our responsibility to maintain peace. Think of historically, the former world super powers. Where they running playing world policeman? No. Now, of course, there may come a time when a country needs to step in to protect their foreign interest or other matters. But to maintain peace just because we have the ability to and the "responsibility" to is foolish.

[Partial]

Everybody should be like Switzerland and stay out of other countries' affairs.

I agree, but unfortunately that is unrealistic. As the global super power it is our responsibility to maintain peace.

And that's where people make the mistake. It is most definitely NOT our responsibility to maintain peace. Think of historically, the former world super powers. Where they running playing world policeman? No. Now, of course, there may come a time when a country needs to step in to protect their foreign interest or other matters. But to maintain peace just because we have the ability to and the "responsibility" to is foolish.

So what exactly was the US doing aiding Afghanistan when Russia invaded them? What about Iraq in the gulf war. What about helping out in Bosnia, bombing in Kosovo, all the clamor to stop the slaughtering in Darfur?

I am all for staying out of peoples business, but in todays world it won't ever happen. Just wait, regardless of who is president you will see them put pressure on NK and Iran, of course you will justify it since Obama will be the one calling the shots.

[MJZiggy]

Partial would you read the stupid paper once in a while before you spout? Bush is making up with NK, there is no longer need to put pressure on them. The "leftist biased" media that you hold in such disregard is still good for something.

Aiding Afghanistan when Russia invaded was to keep Russia in check and keep them from getting Afghan resources. The first gulf war was to keep the Kuwaiti oil flowing. We bowed to pressure to act in Bosnia and Kosovo and there may be clamor to stop the slaughtering, but you don't see the govt. getting involved there do you. Ever ask yourself why?

[Partial]

Partial would you read the stupid paper once in a while before you spout? Bush is making up with NK, there is no longer need to put pressure on them. The "leftist biased" media that you hold in such disregard is still good for something.

Aiding Afghanistan when Russia invaded was to keep Russia in check and keep them from getting Afghan resources. The first gulf war was to keep the Kuwaiti oil flowing. We bowed to pressure to act in Bosnia and Kosovo and there may be clamor to stop the slaughtering, but you don't see the govt. getting involved there do you. Ever ask yourself why?

Actually I see the govt getting involved in EVERY situation you listed. Seems that the Russia invading Af is much the same as us going into Iraq keeping nukes out of Al Qaeda. Hmmm.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Partial would you read the stupid paper once in a while before you spout? Bush is making up with NK, there is no longer need to put pressure on them.

Bush may be remembered somewhat favorably for his foreign policy if NK and Iraq work out. But not in time for this election. :)


Aiding Afghanistan when Russia invaded was to keep Russia in check and keep them from getting Afghan resources. The first gulf war was to keep the Kuwaiti oil flowing. We bowed to pressure to act in Bosnia and Kosovo and there may be clamor to stop the slaughtering, but you don't see the govt. getting involved there do you. Ever ask yourself why?


This sounds right, except where does that "there" refer to? There are still NATO troops in Bosnia.

[MJZiggy]

The there in that sentence goes with the clamor part.

Yes, P, we were involved in those situations, and if you read my post, you'd see that for each one, I listed WHY we were there. Think about WHY we defended Afghanistan and look it up if you need to before you make silly assumptions. There's a lot of history on it.

[mraynrand]

Aiding Afghanistan when Russia invaded was to keep Russia in check and keep them from getting Afghan resources.

What resources? Poppies! Poppies!

http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/movie/img/photos/photo5.jpg

[MJZiggy]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of oil and gemstones, but whatever floats your boat.

[Partial]

The there in that sentence goes with the clamor part.

Yes, P, we were involved in those situations, and if you read my post, you'd see that for each one, I listed WHY we were there. Think about WHY we defended Afghanistan and look it up if you need to before you make silly assumptions. There's a lot of history on it.

Right, and yet protecting our country against a nuclear attack, scoring the natural resources that will soon be 200/barrel isn't adequate enough for you?

[/code]

[MJZiggy]

By that point they already had enough nukes to obliterate the entire planet twice. How is keeping them out of Afghanistan going to affect Russian nuclear ambitions in any way?

[mraynrand]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of oil and gemstones, but whatever floats your boat.

The USSR invaded for gemstones?

Although Afghanistan is a good candidate for oil for pipelines from former republics bordering the Eastern Caspian, it's own reserves seem small, relative to other oil-rich countries.
---------------

"Northern Afghanistan has proved, probable and possible natural gas reserves of about 5 Tcf. This area, which is a southward extension of the highly prolific, natural gas-prone Amu Darya Basin, has the potential to hold a sizable undiscovered gas resource base, especially in sedimentary layers deeper than what were developed during the Soviet era. Afghanistan’s crude oil potential is more modest, with perhaps up to 100 million barrels of medium-gravity recoverable from Angot and other fields that are undeveloped.

Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Most Soviet assistance efforts after the mid-1970s were aimed at increasing natural gas production. Sporadic gas exploration continued through the mid-1980s. The last Soviet technical advisors left Afghanistan in 1988. After a brief hiatus, oil production at the Angot field was restarted in the early 1990s by local militias. Output levels, however, are thought to have been less than 300 barrels per day (bbl/d). Near Sar-i-Pol, the Soviets partially constructed a 10,000-bbl/d topping plant, which although undamaged by war, is thought by Western experts to be unsalvageable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were worried about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism into their own Islamic provinces - like the home of Borat.

[MJZiggy]

i was suggesting resources in general, and that's what I could think of off the top of my head. Screw it. I'm going to bed.

So Harlan, we defended Afghanistan so that Islamic Fundamentalism could spread freely?

[mraynrand]

G'nite Zig. BTW, sort of related - if you like Tolstoy, try reading Hadji Murad - it has some relevance to the current topic and has some of the most powerful imagery in all of Tolstoy (comparable to the Mowing 'scene' with Levin in Anna Karenina). Anyway, that's an aside, but I can't help but think about Hadji when I think about Russians versus Muslims (although it's not quite that simple in the novel as I hope you know or will discover!).

[Harlan Huckleby]

So Harlan, we defended Afghanistan so that Islamic Fundamentalism could spread freely?

I think we were fixated on the Soviet Union. But ya, the taliban were armed by the U.S., we were happy when they took over Afghanistan. Whups.

[MJZiggy]

Oh the irony...

[bobblehead]

Partial would you read the stupid paper once in a while before you spout? Bush is making up with NK, there is no longer need to put pressure on them. The "leftist biased" media that you hold in such disregard is still good for something.

Aiding Afghanistan when Russia invaded was to keep Russia in check and keep them from getting Afghan resources. The first gulf war was to keep the Kuwaiti oil flowing. We bowed to pressure to act in Bosnia and Kosovo and there may be clamor to stop the slaughtering, but you don't see the govt. getting involved there do you. Ever ask yourself why?

That had nothing to do with oil either. At that time saddam was DEFINATELY working on nuclear weaponry with a former german scientist. We set him up by basically telling him privately we didn't care if went into kuwait then when he did, we became "liberators" who promptly bombed the fuck outta saddam's nuclear research facilities and only stopped when he agreed to let in weapons inspectors who destroyed what was left.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Now compare that to how much we've spent in Iraq.


Anti American :lol:

What? I'd like my American money to stay in America, thanks. 8-)

(disclaimer: just because I detest the war doesn't mean I don't support our troops and what their idiot leader sent them to try and accomplish without the proper troop levels or support from above.

Just be glad you lived in a country where you're allowed to say something like that. You can now in Iraq. Several years ago your children would have been raped, you would have been tortured and then gased. Pretty picture, eh.

And that makes Iraq different from the multitudes of other countries that do exactly the same.

Will you be leading the charge to save them as well?

If they start slaughtering their own people, then yes. Funny, how quick everyone is to bitch about civil rights in China yet when we stand up for Iraqis right we are bombing for oil!!!!!!!!

Ok. Can we expect to see you joing the armed forces so you can lead the charge into zimbabwe? Or will you be leading the charge from your computer.

I cane name at least 10 countries off the top of my head that slaughter their own people.