By Tallow101 - 23/07/2009 07:10 - United States
Same thing different taste
Benefits
By Fitz - 05/05/2009 12:22 - United States
By AlienZ - 12/04/2009 02:44 - United States
By IMSERIOUS - 22/01/2014 19:23 - United States - Anaheim
Not under my watch!
By Anonymous - 13/09/2023 22:00
By armenta427 - 07/10/2009 04:12 - United States
By Anonymous - 10/01/2011 05:38
Incomplete freedom
By Anonymous - 04/05/2024 15:00 - United States
By Widowmaker - 09/08/2010 04:03 - France
By Anonymous - 16/12/2011 05:30 - United States
Thank you for your service
By Anonymous - 07/10/2009 18:23 - United States
Top comments
Comments
How much would they get? I hope they were kidding. I wasn't...JK Thanks for serving our country :D
Perhaps I should clarify.. I meant that the month by month statistic of deaths in Iraq began to steadily drop when several thousand more American troops were deployed in Iraq. Many sources will indeed say that the "surge" of American troops did indeed help to quell a large amount of the violence. As for the liberation.. the government of Saddam was run by minority Sunnis.. about 60% of Iraq is Shia. As, you say, naturally the ones being persecuted would be glad to have Americans throw out a government run by a sadistic man, who assassinated Shia leaders, and tortured Shiites. And finally, the war has indeed cost the US a huge amount of money.. over $500 billion. And even though the war happened over there, the US footed a vast majority of the bill when it comes to clean up, rebuilding infrastructure, and repairing and rebuilding destroyed buildings. So yes, it has been a quite expensive ordeal. The only people who have really benefited from all this have been American arms manufacturers, and the Iraqi people. The American people have also indirectly benefited, in that we are fighting the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than having them attack us here at home. And finally, government spending is neever a good thing. People assume that the New Deal worked.. in truth, the country was still in a depression until about 1944. The only thing that brought an end to it, was that almost every available man joined the military, and almost every available woman joined the workforce. It has nothing to do with the New Deal. Bush's bank stimulus didn't work, and Obama's stimulus in January hasn't given satisfying results either. Massive government spending is never a good idea and it never works. The Japanese tried it in the 90's during a depression there.. there's a reason the 1990's are known as the lost decade there. P.S. You're welcome P.P.S. #114 your incoherent and quite frankly retarded outburst has almost nothing to do with me and divineinstrument are discussing.. we are having a reasonable discussion and here you are shouting like some idiot. For the record, Reagan was actually a quite good president.. he sped the falling apart of the Soviet Union considerably, and brought some prestige back to the US (bombing Libya and killing Ghadafi's son after Libyan terrorists bombed a discotheque in Berlin). He also brought an end to the depression brought along by that doofus of a president, Jimmy Carter. His solution? No government spending. Seemed to work then.. But Bush 40 was not so good a president, Clinton was not that good a president, Bush 42 was not a good president at all quite frankly (but he's better than Kerry or Look-at-me-look-at-me-global-warming-is-going-to-rape-your-family Gore), and Obama so far has not been so good.. he spent massively and pushed $700 bil through the house in 2 days.. and it did nothing.
Just giving a massive high five to 119! For actually knowing what their talking about. Most of this country doesn't have a clue.
I agree with almost everything you said except Regan. If you actually trace the fiscal policy and the impact it had (mind you a change in fiscal policy always takes a few years to take into effect) you would trace the following. Bush2 followed a format of economic policy that was borrowed from Bush1. Bush1 followed a policy of "reganomics" from obviously Regan. Regan did not actually invent the concept of Reganomics or "laissez faire" economics, was actually a page from Coolage's book of wizardery. Now trace the major economic depressions. Great Depression, about a year after the cool man left office. Debt going muliplying by a factor of 4, during Regan which lead to the economic down turn of the 80s, and of course the 3 trillion dollar debt which Bushx2 left us. Do you know that 12% of our annual budget just goes into paying interest on the debt. You want free health care, theres your answer. side note. Russia's collapse was a result of there overall budget which happened to spend over 50% on arms and weapons research.
they probs just wanted to know, scince you ARE putting your life at stake. :) But I guess to someone slightly less optimistic, FYL.
Have fun getting shot in the name of cheap oil.
Everyone that says he deserves it for wanting to join the military is a ******* prick and needs to go **** themselves. We would all be ******* dead if there was no military you **** faces.
I love how this fml turned in to a debate. Anyway, 400,000 is NOT the "average" as someone said. It is the maximum. Depending on how much you want to spend on the SGLI. I've only got coverage at 100,000 because I'm invincible and never going to die. Ok, that's a lie but you can change it any time you want, aka right BEFORE deploying somewhere where your life may actually be in jeopardy. Then change it back when returning to CONUS! Save a few dollars each month :)
I could think of a lot of other discussions to have with my son if he came to me with that. We are a military family. Good luck with your future.
Keywords
Dang, man that's ****** up.
Well, that is a reasonable question, you are putting your life at stake...