America Is Number One - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2003, 04:20 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:13 PM
I completely agree with you! The last figure I heard for US military spending was $368 billion (interestingly enough, the US national debt is just a little under $400 billion...) which is greater than the military spending of the next fourteen countries added together.

The US already has a military much larger (and no doubt technologically superior) than the rest of the world...it seems absolutely unnecessary that so much money is invested in it when so many people are without healthcare, or a decent education, or even a home. I'm especially shocked by how much money has been spent and is planned to be spent on the National Missile Defence project, which is not only extremely expensive, but I also think is very dangerous as it would give the United States the ability to use nuclear weapons against another country without the fear of retaliation.

So, yes - I agree. Money should be dedicated to social problems, not only in the US, but around the world, rather than an ever-increasing military budge. Although I guess that my beliefs there are fairly obvious if you just look at my signature!
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 06:14 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:13 AM
I agree the thread could be closed if it turned into just a bashing thread.

It would be easy to create a thread listing why America is number one in only posative things.


But, Fizz breaks out two serious items. Healthcare and Firearms.


Healthcare is one of America’s biggest problems. It possibly is the perfect storm that could hit in the 2004 election.

By separating out the uninsured, or should I say the uninsurable and playing them off against those who do have health care the status quo is maintained. The politicians are bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies and the health insurance companies. All this administration has done is lobby to cap malpractice awards. This was done in California insurance rates stabilized for awhile and the started up again. It took insurance regulation to control the costs.

More and more employed are paying larger ins. premiums with higher co pays and deductibles. Soon the costs of healthcare will be out of the reach or unattainable of too many and some true reform and regulation will be passed.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 06:20 PM   #18
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:13 AM
The only way we'll get healthcare costs addressed with any seriousness in the US is when those in Congress have to use the same systems and payment methods the average Joe has to use. Until then, squat will get done.


Oh, and I think this thread is lame. It's easy to post facts and figures without any back-up information for them.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 07:43 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 12:13 PM
i really miss my international health policy class. too bad i had to drop this class because i was suppose to do a paper regarding this very issue.
__________________
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 10:14 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 12:13 PM
.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 10:51 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:13 PM
The Man Inside The Child,

I think I see the real reason why you started this thread. Your target is US foreign Policy or as you mistakenly put it, US imperialism. The US military budget stands as it is to provide Security for many regions of the planet. Something Canada does very little to help out in by the way.

Fizzing,

People look at the size of the defense budget and attack it just on that. They never actually research where the money is spent and why it is vital that it is spent. The Current US defense budget is less than 17% of the annual federal budget. It is less than 4% of the USA's total GDP. So, in light of that it is not nearly the drain on resources that many claim it is. Rather, it is vital security need that has prevented many wars from errupting over the past 50 years in various regions of the world and has helped to make the world a safer places for example in Iraq by disarming one of the most dangerous dictators in modern times.

But please, instead of looking at the Defense Budget as some lump of money to be raided for ones pet project, tell me what you think specifically in the US Defense Budget should be cut? Which weapons systems which were recently used in operation Iraqi Freedom would you cut? Would you cut the pay of those serving in the military? Would you cut back on their training which helps them to survive combat and win wars quickly? Would you cut back their health care and housing for their families? Would you cut the pensions of those that have retired? Did you know that 2/3s of that "big" military budget which you claim is to large goes to pay, house, provide health care for, and train the soldiers in the military? Thats right, 2/3s!

The Biggest reason that the USA was able to keep civilian loss of life so small in the recent war in Iraq is the technology of the weapons. About 1/3 of the US military budget goes to weapons research and procurement. The heavy spending in this area, has made US forces more powerful enabling them to win wars faster with less loss of life to themselves, the enemy, and most of all, the civilians. Continued improvement in weapons systems technology will help to deter certain governments from fighting in the first place or if that fails, help to win war with an even more minimal loss of life.

So based on that, where do you want to start cutting the US defense budget and why? Please be specific!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 10:56 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Sting how much of it goes to GI Bill and Loan repayment for College?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 11:52 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Sting,

My primary concern is U.S. foreign policy and how it effects various countries around the world. However, it is interesting to note that the following essentials to the sociological balance of America were cut:


$61 million cut in child care for poor working families

$172 million cut in funding for health resources including care for HIV and AIDS

$286 million cut Environmental Protection Agency

$305 million cut in funding for public housing, energy and security

$340 million cut for Center for Disease Control

$395 million cut for Head Start

$684 million cut in job training for workers and youth



As far as Canada goes, I'm proud that my country, along with the rest of the world did not join a war based on false pretenses and rhetoric. Furthermore, national security in the U.S. may not be so crucial in these times if the United States did not intervene in world affairs, especially in the middle east.

Anyways, I agree with you about the weapons, and how loss of life was minimal, on both sides... Nevertheless, it's the economic and imperialistic nature of the Iraqi war and potential future wars that concern me.
__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 11:56 PM   #24
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Man Inside The Child
As far as Canada goes, I'm proud that my country, along with the rest of the world did not join a war based on false pretenses and rhetoric.
Canada Pride is so totally cool.

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-20-2003, 05:33 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora


Canada did give us ice hockey and Kids in the Hall...that's good enough for me.

they did also fight in Europe to free my parents.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 04-20-2003, 05:44 PM   #26
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Canada is a cool country. The Americans who hate it the most have never been there.

The tax statistic makes sense, though. We're a country constantly being bombarded by propaganda that our poverty is due to high taxes...rather than the fact that we're just not getting paid enough anymore. Want to boost the economy? Get money in the hands of the working class, who constitute most of the nation. Whether or not you think they're lazy and stupid, and, thus, don't deserve a good income, their spending drives the economy.

At the same time, I don't see much of a problem at this point with higher military spending. Far from it. The problem is that, while boosting military spending, the U.S. is slashing taxes. I think its time to simpify the tax code, putting the bulk of it on corporate and individual income taxes--the only fair system of taxation (although sales taxes work in the public's favor, only if they are included in the listed price, rather than added afterwards, as customarily done in the U.S.). As it stands, too many people--some deserving, some undeserving--are paying no tax at all. I think the fact that Fortune 500 companies are able to craft paying no taxes at all is symptomatic of what's wrong with this nation.

Anyhow, it's an interesting topic.

Ormus
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 04-20-2003, 06:02 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The Current US defense budget is less than 17% of the annual federal budget. It is less than 4% of the USA's total GDP. So, in light of that it is not nearly the drain on resources that many claim it is.

....

So based on that, where do you want to start cutting the US defense budget and why? Please be specific!
IMO something which costs nearly 1/5th of the US' budget is a drain on resources, particularly given that as we have seen in the original post, there are very many Americans who don't even have access to healthcare, there are many Americans who receive a very poor quality of education, there are many Americans who can't go to college because they can't afford it. Taking that into account, I believe it's wrong for the government to spend almost one fifth of its income on the military.

As for where would I cut the US military budget? Number one I'd stop the development of national missile defence. That is a program which exists to create a situation in which the United States could use nuclear weapons against another country without fear of retaliation, it is a system which will increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons and it is a system that is extremely expensive.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 01:57 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Man Inside The Child,

US intervention in Iraq was based on 17 UN resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules and the violation of the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the first Gulf War. Resolution 678 on Iraq specifically states that members states are authorized "to use all means necessary" to bring compliance with "all subsequent resolutions". Hardly a false pretense or rethoric in my opinion. A threat to the world has been destroyed and 24 million people that had been held hostage and would still be hostage without USA action, have now been liberated.

"Furthermore, national security in the U.S. may not be so crucial in these times if the United States did not intervene in world affairs, especially in the middle east."

US Isolationism rather than intervention help to create the conditions for World War I and World War II. It would not by wise to repeat those mistakes. History has shown that intervention and engagement are a must. The growing interdepence of the world ensures this will continue on into the future. The world and the USA are safer because of US interventionism. The cost to the world of US isolationism in the last half of the 20th century and today would be to great to even consider.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 02:10 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Fizzing,


"IMO something which costs nearly 1/5th of the US' budget is a drain on resources, particularly given that as we have seen in the original post, there are very many Americans who don't even have access to healthcare, there are many Americans who receive a very poor quality of education, there are many Americans who can't go to college because they can't afford it. Taking that into account, I believe it's wrong for the government to spend almost one fifth of its income on the military."

What I think you may not see, is that without a certain level of defense spending, appropriate to defend the country and the countries interest overseas, there would be problems that would make the one's you listed seem like a joke. To many people in World War II payed the price of failing to ensure national and regional security. A failure like that again would mean far more than 50 million dead in todays world. Even with smaller conflicts, the economic shocks that can occur when a dictator invades and takes over another country can have serious economic effects worldwide, that can be far worse than anything you mentioned above, depending on the country and regions where the events take place. This is why military spending is so crucial. Preventing war from happening is #1, but if that fails, and security is compromised, a strong military will help to correct that problem as we just saw in Iraq.

So you would stop the National Missile Defense Program. That takes up about 10 Billion dollars of the nearly 400 Billion dollars that is spent on the military every year in the USA now. Now that you have cut that weapons program out and brought defense spending down to 390 Billion per year, is there anything else you would cut? Why?

Dreadsox,

I don't have the specific answer to your question at this time, but its certainly including in the 2/3s of the budget that does not involve Weapons procurment and Research & Development.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 10:19 AM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Man Inside The Child,

US intervention in Iraq was based on 17 UN resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules and the violation of the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the first Gulf War. Resolution 678 on Iraq specifically states that members states are authorized "to use all means necessary" to bring compliance with "all subsequent resolutions".
OK, your right about the UN resolutions, but if your argument had any basis, then perhaps their should have been an attack on Israel for violating almost 10 times more the resolutions Iraq has...


While Mr. Bush used the fact that Saddam Hussein has not complied with UN resolutions as an excuse to launch his ``pre-emptive" war, Israel has not complied with substancially more. Here's a list I found on the U.N. site displaying Israel's constant breaking of resolutions between 1955-1992 - 65 resolutions to be exact.

Many more resolutions in the past decade have accumulated ballooning that number.... I'm not sure to how many resolutions though, but I know they've increased substancially since 2000. Along the way, the United States has vetoed several other resolutions that were critical to Israel... Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to support this violent, inhumane, unjust regime through billions of dollars in aid.

Take a look,



1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.


In recent years... Israel has committed the following horrible offences or crimes against humanity:

Resolution 1322: October 7, 2000 -- "Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places. … Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life."

Resolution 1435: September 24, 2002 -- "Alarmed at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and good, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people."

There's a few more, one that states that zionism = racism.


If we are going to argue about resolutions, I think that Israel should seriously be considered as the next step for the U.N. considering they violated much more than the Iraqis. Of course, that's not gonna happen. The torture, murder, and continued seisure of Palestinian land must come to an end neverhteless.

If your argument was to attack Saddam based on WMD's then perhaps Israel, who have over 300 nuclear weapons should lead by example and begin destroying theirs. Why doesn't the U.S. take action?

Clearly their is was an alterior motive, one is economics/oil and the other is zionist asperations to control the middle east and stabilize Israel.. Albeit, Saddam Hussein is out and I'm happy that the Iraqi people are free of his control... I just hope that they will soon be free of American control, although I'm not optimistic.

This, I find this disgusting. That Israel continues to have absolutely no respect for humanity and internation law.... and continue to be unpunished... I find this especially disturbing considering that the U.S. is granting even more aid, up to 12 billion (excluding weapons grants), to Israel to continue such horrible crimes against humanity.

Anyways, how many resolutions did Iraq break.... Makes you wonder doesn't it?

later, michael
__________________

__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com