New budget proposal

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by redsocialist

My point being I do not see any difference in dropping a Mk84 bomb from 65,000 ft saying "Mark 2, drop", and a insurgent in the middle east running to a building, with an IED, saying Alluahakbar. In reality, the Mk84 bomb kills 10 times as many civilians. Thats worse than the so called "terrorist".

The idea behind a military air strike is to destroy a military target. Period. That being said, there are bombs in development now that pack a smaller warhead (and some without warheads) to cause localized damage to a military target, further reducing the chances of unnecessary civilian casualties.


The insurgent with the bomb strapped around his belly is trying to kill civilians. The point there is to kill civilians, with the hope that all the other civilians who hear of the event will not dare to oppose those who ordered the bombing.


Now let me ask you this:

If the US really wanted to kill civilians, then why is our military funding research into weapons that will hopefully reduce civilian deaths while still putting the hurt on the enemy?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by redsocialist

While I agree with your summation of the Nazis, you're playing troll games again. You won't convince anyone by ridiculing them.

yes thank you for proving my point!

And again. This forum is not like others on the web, and you would do better to stop playing games.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I find it ironic that the right says "control the spending" and when Obama suggests just that...everyone freaks and laughs

When Obama says "control spending" and then offers up a budget which would double national debt by the end of his term, it's hard not to laugh - then freak.

[August]

Originally Posted by redsocialist

Yea, I could have my friend on here and you could ask him all your wondering about SFRJ. Though obviously will say, its me pretending... What should I do? I beleive what he told me, I'v known him for years.

If you do that make sure your friend is prepared to defend a failed country that hardly lasted beyond the death of it's dictator.

[tater]

Originally Posted by redsocialist

First of all, national socialism is not socialism LMAO. The first victims of "socialist" hitler were the working class organizers, the SPD, and the communist Party. Union organizers were jailed, and Hitler created a fascist state merging corporations and the government similar to what we have now in USA. Also, US corporations like IBM, and ITT had the luxuery of doing business with the nazis. Hilarous how you right wingers love to label nazis as socialists, then use nazism as an argument against socialism. Gotta love it. Sorry I don't mean to be insulting its just hilarious

And no we spend at least 2 trillion, search again. Your only including defense, what you don't realize there' smore lables of spending going towards the imperialist agenda than "defense".

National socialism was certainly socialism. The communists always attack their own first. The CCCP murdered maybe 60 million "fellow travelers." The PRC, more. Murdering their own is what communists do best, it's their best industry.

The German state was a command economy, with highly central control over every aspect of people's lives, including their economic activity. That is socialism, period, and it is a necessary condition for mass murder (a weak central government cannot order millions killed, it doesn't work).

[tater]

There is a huge difference between a JDAM and an VBIED or other terrorist weapon. In many cases they are specifically aimed at civilians. The intent matters. There is less difference between some area bombing (from, say ww2) and terror bombing, but there is some. For the most part counter-value nuclear strategies are in fact terror as a deterrent.