2008 US Election

[JoeLassister]

Guys, we love hockey, they love war. That's it.

[simonus]

There is a significant difference between wanting to be prepared and being scared. Boy scouts are always prepared, but they're not scared.

to be fair they are scared of homosexuals.

[JLP]

Boy scouts are always prepared, but they're not scared.

I served with the Boy Scouts: I knew Boy Scouts; Boy Scouts were friends of mine. Sir, the architects of the US military-industrial complex are no Boy Scouts.

[Fanpuck33]

Guys, we love hockey, they love war. That's it.

Think before you speak and notice where I live...

[JoeLassister]

Think before you speak and notice where I live...

I know where you live. Are you denying that the USA have a HUUUUUGE war tradition ?

Edited November 12, 2008 by JoeLassister

[JLP]

I know where you live. Are you denying that the USA have a HUUUUUGE war tradition ?

Some say the USA is addicted to war

Good little read if you have the patience (and an open mind).

[Fanpuck33]

I know where you live. Are you denying that the USA have a HUUUUUGE war tradition ?

I'm saying it's a ridiculous thing to say, especially to an American who loves hockey enough to be a moderator on a Habs website, go to NHL games, wear hockey apparel, buy NHL GameCenter live, etc.

And yes, I deny that Americans love war. Sure, there are a selfish few who see and use war to profit or just like flexing muscles. But the vast majority of us hate war and hate that it has to happen. I mean, do you really think everyone who supported the Iraq invasion was happy about it? Do you really think we enjoy sending our young men and women into harm's way? Honestly, your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the typical American.

Look at me. Ignoring the hindsight of how poorly it was timed and handled, I think taking down Saddam was the right thing to do. The world is a better place without him. I didn't however, wish for it or hope that it happened. I would have been far happier had Saddam not given the UN and the US the middle finger for all those years.

As for the comment about a tradition of war, that's a joke, right? Just over 225+ is such a long tradition. No other areas or countries have a longer history of violence, do they?

[JoeLassister]

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:

Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In fully glory reflected now shines in the stream:

'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh, long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion

A home and a country should leave us no more?

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Fanpuck33]

Ah, I see I won this particularl argument. Joe has decided to apologize for his ignorant and hurtful comment by honoring my country.

[JoeLassister]

I was more pointing out that the USA national anthem contain :

Rampart

Perilious fights

Rocket's red glare

Bombs bursting in air

Havoc of war

Battle's confusion

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!

The war's desolation

Blest with victory

Praise the Power

Then conquer we must

That sounds so pacifist

[Fanpuck33]

Hmm, let's see here. It was written during the war of 1812 by a man observing a battle. I can't imagine why it has references to war in it.

Seriously, dude, you just don't understand it. Respecting what war has accomplished and seeing it as necessary at times isn't even close to loving war. People love the results of war, not war itself. I love that the US is a free country. I love that the civil war ended slavery and kept the country together. (Although many of the negative conservative stereotypes are southern hicks, so I could live without the South, haha.) I love that Nazism was stopped. I do not, however, love the fact that it took war to accomplish those things. I hate that so many good people had to die to accomplish those things. I love that Saddam is out of power and think the world is a better place without him. I do not love that it came to invasion and that the rest of the world was content to let Saddam get away with his violations indefinitely. I hate that the war was so poorly planned and executed. I hate that so many innocent people have died because assholes dress like and hide among civilians.

It's time for me to step away from this thread, the PTG level is just too high.

[JoeLassister]

Denying that USA (or part of it) love war is just a nosense.

Military has been the motor of the economy for DECADES

Kozed's numbers at the military spending

Using war to help the economy

Israel

JFK was killed on a war purpose

USA might be the country who praise, love their soldiers the most on the Earth

2nd amendment of the constitution says you have the right to own/carry a GUN

25+ % of the population own a gun

NRA

should I keep on going or is it enough ?

Should I have sayed that USA seem to love the war a litle more than an average country in this world ?

Edit : this is indeed an exterior look. I'm sorry, but, it looks like this.

Edited November 12, 2008 by JoeLassister

[CerebusClone]

B-b-but we live in a "DANGEROUS WORLD"!!

~ I can't get over how many times the Republicans used that line. Sayonara fear-mongers.

When you're invading and/or imposing your own values on countries who already felt huge hatred towards you for doing just that in the past, then yes it can be a dangerous world. If I'm not mistaken, the goal in Iraq was to take down Saddam Hussein, remove the weapons of mass destruction, and impose a new democratic government (it's kind of ironic to impose democracy)... considering Saddam is dead, there were no weapons, and that the population has voted for a new government a few years ago (and no the US wasn't on that ballot), shouldn't the US be gone by now?

By the way, why is it even called "Defense"... when was the last serious threat to the United States that could actually take over the country? Most of those investments have been for offense, to invade, take over, and control other countries (or threaten countries like Syria)...

However I agree 100% on your statement regarding the lower bidder... that's someting that even our governments do, and in the end costs a lot more money because they often end up with subpar solutions that barely fulfill the requirements (often with a lot of patching and suspect tweaking), that require much more maintenance and/or labor, that don't integrate eaisly into existing infrastructures, and that often end up in the garbage forcing them to revert to the old systems/processes, switch to the second lowest bidder after months of wasted ressources, or start a whole new RFP process...

[Chris]

CC, if Iraq wanted us gone we would be gone, there government still wants us there. They want a slow withdrawal.

What countries has the us "taken over"?

Syria? Haven't they threatend and done violence on other countries? What's the difference, because we are the US? You are giving othter countries a pass when they misbehave and only point out American flaws. The US isn't perfect, and like it or not the US is the world's police. The UN is worthless.

If it wasn't for the US protecting other countries you would be speaking German right now, or worse deping on your religion or how you looked you would have been exterminated. it's amazing to me how quickly people forget all the good the US does and helps out other countries.

[Mont Royale]

By the way, why is it even called "Defense"... when was the last serious threat to the United States that could actually take over the country? Most of those investments have been for offense, to invade, take over, and control other countries (or threaten countries like Syria)...

I know they weren't about to take over the country (not sure that criteria is relevant), but the terrorist attacks were a 'serious threat', wouldn't you agree?

I, for one, would like the U.S. to continue to be the predominant military and economic power in the world. As much as the last 8 years has reminded us that this power can be abused, the fact is that the era of U.S. (or U.S.-Soviet) hegemony has been relatively free of the large scale conflicts that were (more or less) the norm through to WWII. The possibility of U.S. intervention has undoubtedly been a decisive factor in this. (As an aside, I don't think the suggestion that Obama would do something to undermine his own country's power is very credible.)

Bush is justifiably criticized for his predisposition for war, but it shouldn't be ignored that there are safeguards on the power of the presidency, namely Congress. The fact that Congress went along with the Iraq scheme proves the system isn't perfect (and speaks to the hysteria that followed the 9-11 attacks), but it's a system that often works as intended. In the case of military decisions, I think it's preferable to the Canadian system, where a party often has the majority and there is much more expectation of voting with party lines, which puts more power in the hands of a single individual.

[Trizzak]

If it wasn't for the US protecting other countries you would be speaking German right now, or worse deping on your religion or how you looked you would have been exterminated. it's amazing to me how quickly people forget all the good the US does and helps out other countries.

*pokes head in* Actually, the US only reeeally got involved in WWII after they were attacked... not really all that much "world protecting" going on there. *pokes head out*

[Habitforming]

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:

Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In fully glory reflected now shines in the stream:

'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh, long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion

A home and a country should leave us no more?

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Wasn't "The Star Spangled Banner" written by a European or is that wrong?

[Zowpeb]

This thread is turning into a ridiculousity...

I would like to touch on the concept of the "lowest bidder wins"...

As someone who is involved in a part of the building industry, from a spec grade manufacturer, I think I can inject a unique take...

In some European countries they use a standard that I find intriguing. They take the average of all bids and select the company closest to the average. The lowest bidder style ends up resulting in typically selecting the company with either lower grade, commoditized, products OR the company that made an error in their bid. By selecting to the average you have companies that are simply putting their "best foot forward".

However, of larger concern is the selection process of many government contracts (not just defense contracts). Often product is specified around a "performance specification" and ultimately written to essentially limit that spec to one companies product. This practice invites corrupt practices where suppliers can bribe/extort the independant consultants designing projects...or projects are of such a scale that competitors collude to split who gets what contract. Since these things happen with independant consultants these things are "hidden" from public view. It likely happens a lot more then people realise...in fact, the Adscam issue likely pales in comparison when you consider the hundreds of billions government(at all levels) spends on construction financing. The result is that the cost of this is paid for by the government since suppliers then feel free to over charge for their material as they are single named on the specifications. I have lost many government contracts because I refuse to partake in this distasteful business practice. Now, allow me to also say that not all performance specs happen this way...in fact, most likely don't. It's just that the process opens itself up to abuse from some of the snakes in the world.

Having said this, single name specifications are an integral part of ensuring the quality of supplier selection or the world would be filled with products that are commodities and innovation would be stifled. However, there is SIMPLE better way to ensure this is done cost effectively. All they have to do is write a "cash allowance spec" which means the independant consultant compares the technical benefits and weighs this against the the total life cycle costs of the material/supplier. Once complete the suppliers may KNOW up front who is getting the order but it's based on a price that is actually written into the specs up front...in other words, the "bidding" is done during a competitive specification analysis. This also eliminates anyone from scuttling the process based on inferior pricing due to inferior products that are pitched as "equal" to the base bid. In fact, this simple solution would also greatly benefit those with an environmental agenda since newer technology is more expensive and the up front costs are typically "cut" during the purchasing phases as contractors fight to ensure they have the lowest bid.

This problem eats up HUGE taxpayer dollars in most countries...

Also, Fanpuck, the US could cut huge dollars on defence spending by actually cutting back in many areas...I get what your saying and I agree with your comments on the bid issue. But hidden in the melodrama of everyones posts is some validity...the US needs to start pulling out of Iraq (big savings there). The Iraqi people wanted their dictator gone and many were even willing to welcome the US in to help in that goal...but if the US continues to stay in Iraq even the people who supported the US will start to turn against them...it happened in Iran during the late 70's with the Shah of Iran. The Iraqi people will have a similar mindset.

The US could spend less money in areas that will more effectively improve their defense...

It's also worth pointing out that MANY of the worlds innovations have come from military design and development...so cutting to the level that many want could also seriously hamper much of the worlds innovation. Innovations need a customer and military spending has been the biggest customer innovation has ever had.

[Mont Royale]

Wasn't "The Star Spangled Banner" written by a European or is that wrong?

Not sure - but after seeing all those lyrics, I'm glad they do the short version before hockey games!

[Fanpuck33]

*pokes head in* Actually, the US only reeeally got involved in WWII after they were attacked... not really all that much "world protecting" going on there. *pokes head out*

Since Trizz hasn't raised the PTG factor, I'll go ahead and poke my head back in. After WWI and then the depression, the US was big into isolationism. That is why it took a direct attack to get us involved in the war. If the US had been into "world protecting" at the time, just think how different the war would have been.

And no, Francis Scott Key was not European.

Also, Fanpuck, the US could cut huge dollars on defence spending by actually cutting back in many areas...I get what your saying and I agree with your comments on the bid issue. But hidden in the melodrama of everyones posts is some validity...the US needs to start pulling out of Iraq (big savings there). The Iraqi people wanted their dictator gone and many were even willing to welcome the US in to help in that goal...but if the US continues to stay in Iraq even the people who supported the US will start to turn against them...it happened in Iran during the late 70's with the Shah of Iran. The Iraqi people will have a similar mindset.

Zowpeb also hasn't contributed, so I'll respond to him too. Personally, I think pulling out is a lose-lose situation. A lot of them want us out of their hair and a lot of them will feel we are abandoning them. Given that Obama will surely be bringing us out soon, I can only hope our departure decreases the violence so that the Iraqi police don't get overwhelmed.

[KoZed]

If it wasn't for the US protecting other countries you would be speaking German right now, or worse deping on your religion or how you looked you would have been exterminated. it's amazing to me how quickly people forget all the good the US does and helps out other countries.

That's such a clichéd load of crap.

1) The US weren't alone fighting the Nazis & the Axis. UK was too, Canada was too, USSR was too, China (vs Japan) was too. Canada was fighting Nazis 2 years before the US realized that, hey, there's some shit going on in the rest of the World.

2) The USSR would most likely have stamped out the Nazis with or without the rest of the Allies. Which would have meant that Communism would have spread to the rest of Europe post-War.

3) What's wrong with speaking German? Sounds like a much more badass language than English.

[Mont Royale]

Since Trizz hasn't raised the PTG factor, I'll go ahead and poke my head back in. After WWI and then the depression, the US was big into isolationism. That is why it took a direct attack to get us involved in the war.

Considering the environment of isolationism at the time, FDR provided support to Britain beyond all reasonable expectations (and at considerable political risk). Now there was GREAT president.

[Chris]

Then move to Germany.

Everone helped in the WW2 i am aware of that. America has done more to protect countries then any other country in history. Many coutries use the US as allies for protection, Canada included.

[KoZed]

It's also worth pointing out that MANY of the worlds innovations have come from military design and development...so cutting to the level that many want could also seriously hamper much of the worlds innovation. Innovations need a customer and military spending has been the biggest customer innovation has ever had.

Same can be said about space programs. Fact is, innovation comes from motivating the most brilliant minds to pursue a specific field of research. Geniuses and scientists are like the rest of us, they're more motivated when there's money around, ie. salaries and research budgets.

If the money is put in the military, then that's where the innovations will come from. But put that money in another field, say environmentalism (make stricter anti-pollution laws on both the supply and demand side) and voilà, you've just made people and companies customers of environmental innovations.

Would be much smarter too. To date, the Iraq War has costed 570 billion dollars, and it's costing 1k more every second. Iraq's oil field is estimated at around 400 billions barrels. If you average (with inflation) the cost of a barrel at 25$, and production costs at 1.5$/barrel, and other expenditures, you get something like 44 billions profits per year. Meaning it'd take 12 years to recoup the costs of 6 years of war. That's a mighty pricy oil-grab dont you think?

If that half a trillion would have been concentrated on finding an alternative to oil (either through a new source of energy or new motor technology), you can bet your ass we'd have real results and progress right now.

Fact of the matter is: this is 2008. Conventional militaro-geo-politics based on armament (deterrent & etc.) capabilities is simply an obsolete matrix of analysis. Lot of people -- mostly right-wing social conservatives -- are still following that old Cold War model.

This era we live in is much more akin to the post-Carolingian Empire High Middle Ages (13th century and on), where things were blurred and in great motion. Back then the true power wasn't in military anymore, but in the newly expanding urban centers, the science & technology innovations, the creation of institutions like Universities, and the newly created, inter-national trade associations.

[CerebusClone]

However, of larger concern is the selection process of many government contracts (not just defense contracts). Often product is specified around a "performance specification" and ultimately written to essentially limit that spec to one companies product. This practice invites corrupt practices where suppliers can bribe/extort the independant consultants designing projects...or projects are of such a scale that competitors collude to split who gets what contract. Since these things happen with independant consultants these things are "hidden" from public view. It likely happens a lot more then people realise...in fact, the Adscam issue likely pales in comparison when you consider the hundreds of billions government(at all levels) spends on construction financing. The result is that the cost of this is paid for by the government since suppliers then feel free to over charge for their material as they are single named on the specifications. I have lost many government contracts because I refuse to partake in this distasteful business practice. Now, allow me to also say that not all performance specs happen this way...in fact, most likely don't. It's just that the process opens itself up to abuse from some of the snakes in the world.

You're right that this gets done more often than not - as a matter of fact I find that you usually have little chance to be awarded a project based on a RFP if you were not involved previously during pilot projects, RFIs, etc - however it is not necessarily always because of corrupt practices, bribes or anything like that. Large compagnies as well as ministries usually spend a lot of time working on pilot projects, testing solutions, and working on specifications before they enter the RFP process, they usually know exactly what they want, and more importantly they do not want to get stuck with some inferior cheaper solution that hey know nothing about.

This happened to us last year with a Ministry, they wanted to work with us, but some cheap toolkit solution won the RFP by about 10K (out of a lot more). So they wasted months of time and money trying to get that piece of junk software to work, until they they kicked out that lowest bidder. Then they called me to see if our bid was still valid, I met with them, we imlpemented the solution, and they're now very happy. To resume, they lost a LOT of money because they were forced to select the bidder who was a lousy $10,000 lower even though our solution was by far superior (for example our proof of concept took a few hours while the other company's lasted 3 days)...