Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
Loading...Saving...
And by the way: Can we still call it "Defense" spending, when it is about pre-emptive strikes, that are attacks by definition?
It should get labeled Offense Spending or Invasion Spending.
13otany13ay 3 years ago
It was considered defense spending when we invaded Germany in WWII even though their troops never set foot on our soil. A more accurate term might be "Military" spending, though it all comes down the the same idea: Use violence or the perception of strength to eliminate an enemy's ability to harm. This includes enforcing treaties that "ended" a previous war.
oooooDisgruntledMonk 3 years ago
Contrary to Iraq, Germany invaded Poland. Its ally Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. I find it astonishing some people still compare WWII with the post WWII situation.
13otany13ay 3 years ago
Just as Germany invaded Poland, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Because of that invasion we, and other nations, went to war with Iraq. That war ended with a treaty. Iraq broke that treaty and continued to do so for many years. Congress stated plainly in the Iraq Resolution of 2002 that the breaking of that treaty was a main reason for the invasion of Iraq. I don't find it astonishing that people who ignore both history and documented fact continue to be astonished.
oooooDisgruntledMonk 3 years ago
The treaty you referr to was a UN resolution. So, why was the US invading Iraq eventhough the UN was against it? As a matter of fact the US ignored the very same UN resolution you use to justify the attacks with. Ignoring a UN resolution is a violation too. So, the US violated a UN resolution to invade Iraq, because it too violated the same resolution. Doesnt make sense.
I am sorry. The US had their reasons, but it remains an agression, no matter how one justifies it.
13otany13ay 3 years ago
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was called a necessary bail out by the Heritage Foundation. Why? Because oil industry and banks...
Now, the automobile industry demands subsidies for the development of technologies that harm the interests of the oil-industry, the Heritage Foundation is against it.
Can it get any more obvious?
13otany13ay 3 years ago