On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

In article ,
says...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.


Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that
China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly
wouldn't go around calling others morons.

"Secular Humanist" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to
help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might
say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats,
more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money.
Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.


Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that
China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly
wouldn't go around calling others morons.

You sure need to get out more. You waste a lot of time foaming at the mouth
and spoofing people.

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:10:41 -0400, Secular Humanist
wrote:

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more,
at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats,
more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money.
Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.


Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that
China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly
wouldn't go around calling others morons.

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse. It's unlikely, or it's
about as likely as Cheney being voted most popular former VP.

Spending as much as we do on defense is foolish. That is one of the
factors that brought down the Soviets and what is keeping North Korea
in poverty.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse.

It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to
be spending $790 billion on defending from that.

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit more
complicated than that.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse.

It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to
be spending $790 billion on defending from that.

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.

There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and
counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money.

On Aug 24, 2:20*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse.

It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to
be spending $790 billion on defending from that.

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.

There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and
counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money.

Indeed, D'Plume. A waste of money, just like the stimulus package.

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:20:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.

There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and
counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money.


Which is which? I understand Saddam is gone but Bin Laden is still
around.

?? Not sure of your point. Iraq was a war of choice that cost us $1+T, not
counting the 100000s of ruined/lost lives. How does that equate to a few
missiles targeting China?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:38:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.

True, but they would crush themselves even worse.

It would certainly be less damaging to them than a war and we seem to
be spending $790 billion on defending from that.

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.


So she is right? Your $790B figure is a gross overstatement. She has you by
the short hairs so to speak.

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.