US Airforce: Oh, alright terrorists you win

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Why do you even feel the need to compare?

I don't. I do have a problem with someone who claims their country is more generous than any other. They are the one's making a comparison. If they want to compare generousness they should use figures which are truly comparative. That's %GDP figures. They don't show the US as being the most country.

That's my only beef. Not how much countries give - but people being disingenuous over the matter. The US is of course more than generous enough... but that doesn't give morons the right to go round claiming they are more generous than anyone else.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The relative value to the giver isn't terribly relevant.

No its not, not to how much good the aid can do. But if people want to compare generosity, it is the relative value to the giver that's important.

More aid is of course more useful than less aid even if the smaller amount was more generously given. That's not the comparator that's used incorrectly. If people said US aid did more good than any other country's aid that would often be correct, it often being a bigger amount. But what people say is that the US is more generous.

That's not usually correct as generosity is not a measurement of the relative worth to the recipient but by the relative worth to the giver.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin.

They did. By such a huge margin that it's hard to even comprehend. Sure they also won in the end on points and they gained more than any other country in terms of territory... but look at that cost. It's staggering. Of course there are ways in which they came out of the war the biggest loosers of all.

Quote

There was continual resupply of Britain by America,

Don't pretend that that was in any way gratuitous or out of the goodness of America's heart though. That was a pure business transaction for which the UK paid exceptionally heavily. Those goods sent over from the states were bought and paid for on HP by the UK.

Running such a big tab caused the British Empire to crumble under the weight of the repayments after the war. The US made an exceptional amount of money out of selling war goods to the UK prior to their involvement in the war.

All justified and certainly well received... but buisness it was.

Quote

What you're really saying is we'd all be speaking Russian by now if it wasn't for the Americans.

That's certainly a possibility, yes.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Wrong speech. I specifically mentioned the January (SOTU) speech. Remember, the one with yellowcake from Niger in it.

Nope. You have repeatedly said the main reason we were given for going to war was because SH had WMDs. You have gone on and on and on ad nauseum in more threads than I can count. I would say the reasons given on the eve of the war are the reasons. 4 mentions of liberating the Iraqi People and only 1 mention of WMDs. I'd say that trumps what was said over 2 months prior to going to war in a SOTU Address. You have been overwhelmingly wrong for quite some time. Hey you said it in another thread, sometimes intelligent people are wrong.

Try reading what I wrote AGAIN and AGAIN until you recognize the word JANUARY in it. Here it is:

"Seems I recall Iraq had not much to do with terrorists until we went in there. The reason I recall for invading Iraq, as clearly stated by the President in his address to the nation in January 2003, was to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction."

Hint. I put the word in bold this time to help you find it.

You might also re-read Colin Powell's 2003 address to the UN Security Council.

Now stop trying to re-invent history.

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

"The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world."
C. Powell, Feb 2003, UN Security Council.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin.

I dunno. Total number of people who died seems like a pretty good yardstick for measuring who "lost" a war.

No no, it's total number of people who died DIVIDED by their net worth (as a percentage of the GDP)

As far as a good 'yardstick' for measuring, russia is on the metric system (as anyone knows, the imperical system is lousy -some say impossible- for magnetics and any field type application)

edit: by field, I mean electro-magnetics, corn fields still measure ok in any system so we can keep the rods, bushels, and cubits and acres if you like pain

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants