Imagine if we spent billions on an alternative to oil instead of a missile defense system that simply doesn’t work how far ahead we would be (we wouldn’t need a missile defense system, for starters).
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Misty Stone Is Green
- Devin Hester Pantsed On Sunday Night Football
- Video: Adam Lambert Falls At 2009 AMA
- Taylor Swift Wins Favorite Artist @ 2009 American Music Awards
- Oprah Producing Sexy Series For HBO
- Mall Cops: Mall Of America Series Coming To TLC
- 2009 WWE Survivor Series Results
- Video: Jennifer Lopez Falls On Stage At 2009 American Music Awards
- Dashawn Vasconcellos: NYPD Shot Teen 11 Times
- Disney Adapting High School Musical For China
Live News
Cue wingnut with a link from WorldNut Daily saying that we NOW have a missile defense system which everyday stops threats from suicide bombers.
Actually, you are wrong.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060406_4741.html
It is currently operational.
What if we spent all the money that went into the “war on poverty” on energy research? I mean, the nanny state has been handing out cash and cash equivalents for nigh on 40 years now, and we still have a bunch of “poor” people…..
hell with missile defense at least we are getting something for our money…
Another critter created by a committee, like the ‘Bradley’.
pedro could you please direct us to point in the article where anyone actually says that the system is “operational.”
Yeah, the missile defense works if they tell us ahead of time, let us know where the missile is going and as long as it doesn’t rain. Then it might work. Come on, Pedro, I’m not even remotely asking the military to disarm but this system doesn’t work. It doesn’t keep you or me safe at all, not even remotely.
There is a reason the Rethugs are so successful, and that is the aggressive gullibility of their base. Case in point: pedro’s eager lap-up of a vague agitprop press release from a military shill.
Having a ‘rudimentary’ missile defense system ‘operational’ (in the context of the agitprop article) is a lot like having a soapbox derby car ‘operational’ for the Indy 500.
Frame, you’re onto the reason why this bit of official horseshit should be dismissed out of hand: the reflexive Bushie reference to 9/11. I’m just surprised that the ‘official’ allowed himself to be named.
On another note, the ‘War on Poverty’ has achieved some success, but its glaring failures result from its being made ‘operational’ in a fashion similar to ‘missile defense.’
Imagine if we simply wrote every welfare recipient an annual check.
Wingnut on cue: From pedro’s link:
“Flory said many have questioned the wisdom of investing in missile defense in a post-Sept. 11 world. “I would turn that argument around somewhat,” he said. “One of the lessons of Sept. 11 is that nothing is unthinkable. The United States must and can prepare to defend itself against the widest range of threats possible. Leaving ourselves vulnerable to a type of attack will only increase the likelihood that an adversary will exploit that vulnerability to threaten or attack us.”
Um, I believe 9-11 was pretty much thinkable.
Never mind that the “war on poverty” cut the % of families on poverty from 1/3 to 1/2. Would it be that the “war on Iraq” was that successful.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
In fact it shows that the poverty rate was the lowest in the last years of the Carter administration (before Reagan trickle-on economics took over) and in the last years of the Clinton administration (before the Bush recession).
The “War on Poverty is a failure” meme is a well-known one, and accepted by many Americans, but is demonstrably a lie.
It’s defense contractor welfare, so it’s good welfare.
There must be a better way to keep the military industrial complex
healthy, wealthy and outsized.
“we wouldn t need a missile defense system, for starters.”
Oh really, Oliver? And just how much oil do we currently get from the Norks? What’s that you say? None?
Well then, I guess we can just ignore the nuclear material they are trying to put in missles then? I’m sure you’re OK with that, even if your party’s last Presidentail candidate, John F. Kerry, still thinks they are a threat.
Oh, and factcheck, you need to stop reading only percentages.
If, in 45 years, you have only taken 2500 people above the poverty line, you have failed.
At least, if we use the same gradation curve that YOU are using for Iraq.
Ignoring the billions wasted by the DOD in the “missile defense program”, there is a lot of money wasted by the federal government on corporate welfare. For example, take the energy bill passed by Congress in 2005:
The oil and gas industry gave members of Congress more than $55 million in
campaign contributions from 2001 through October 31, 2005. Then while the rest of us were getting the shaft from gasoline prices, the energy bill passed by Congress in 2005, did virtually nothing to address the fundamental problems plaguing energy policies but it gave the oil and gas companies $6 billion in subsidies. That s $110 in federal subsidies, for every dollar spent on campaign contributions during that period. So in addition to paying for gas at the pump, you were also making the campaign contributions they used to collect more corporate welfare from the federal government.
http://www.cleanupwashington.org/fightcorruption/page.cfm?pageid=9
That doesn’t count funds spent by the DOD to defend oil supplies in the Persian Gulf, which is well into the billions. Furthermore, missile defense systems do nothing to protect us from nuclear weapons that could be smuggled in a package as small as a briefcase. Rather than wasting billions to defend against a less likely scenario, how about spending more of the taxpayers money on research and development and mass transit systems. If we dry up the money supply that is going to our enemies, they will have less to spend on ways to attack us.
yea, a whole bunch of things.
So they didn’t get rich and they didn’t starve. Did you have something else in mind?
If, in 45 years, you have only taken 2500 people above the poverty line, you have failed. At least, if we use the same gradation curve that YOU are using for Iraq.
Comparing raising people above the poverty line, started by a democratic administration, to death in an uneccessary war based on a pack of lies promulgated by a republican administration. That really makes a lot of sense.
Pedro, Take a break -and stay on it.
Nowhere in OW’s original post did he state that the funds used for missile defense (which still doesent work despite billions dumped into it since the Reagan era -y’know a defense system that works some of the time is not a viable defense system -especially when it comes to those nukular thangs) should be diverted to the war on poverty. You decided to take the reins just to say, “well, let the poor starve, this missile defense stuff might work. Brilliant, man. Just brilliant.
Day in and day out, your responses reek of that of a full time Ken Mehlman fluffer. Loud, proud and perpetually uninformed, you race to respond with some soiciopathic assumption that this blog is undermining ‘Merkua, someway. Somehow.
So make a choice. Take your low-tooth-per-capita wisdom over to Red State, Blogs for Bush or Captians Quarters -they’ll take your hastily scribed diatribes that bubble-fart from the silly depths of your misfiring synapses without question. Who knows, maybe you’ll get an autographed photo of Rush Limbaugh or an e-mailed PDF copy of the Turner Diaries.
Or, you can stick around, so you can let your own words be your undoing. Feel free to continually expose that canker that says “Bush Backer” to you and “not the brightest bulb in the marquee” to the rest of us-
64% of us. Get it?
Analog-are you really scared of North Korean missiles lobbing nukes on your head? What part of the United States do you live in, Guam?
Haven’t you heard, Impor? Behind the tough talk of every winger lies a COWARD. They’re afraid of everything, including their own shadow (which, when the sight of it catches them off guard, is often mistaken for a colored person).
“If, in 45 years, you have only taken 2500 people above the poverty line, you have failed.
At least, if we use the same gradation curve that YOU are using for Iraq. ”
No, we are failing in Iraq because none of those people had to die. It was a pre-emptive war against a non-threat.
I think you have to be short sighted idiot not to pursue a missile defense program. As with all weapons programs, an inititial opertaional capabaliy is established and over time the fielded system is improved. This has happened to every complex weapon ssytem we have introduced. Will happen here.
Actully usually the operational capability of anew weapon system is classified so DOD seldom says we now have operational capability – especially if in fact they don’t. But when they say all pieces in place that usually would indicate, if not capability, merely a short matter of time (training, support) until an IOC is established.
Take your heads out of the sand. Technology doesn’t hurt – and it is very complex. If we insisted on every technological advance working perfectly from day one we would still be cooking on open fires and commuting on mules.
Dugger
Frank_D Says:
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Imagine if we simply wrote every welfare recipient an annual check.
Imagine if we simply wrote every rich millionaire in the country an annual check.
Quickie,
It was one of my (many) neocon mindslave friends (they’re so easy to control).
No weapon system has ever/ever been 100% effective. All are modified. Israel is now flying the F-15I (get it?, A-H changes). The fact that missile defense has growing pains is not a sound go/no go argument against it at all.
If you want to argue no missile defense, fine by me. But I would not want us to be blackmail-level vulnerable to every UN coddled tinpot dictator in the world who can cadge together an old missile and black market nuke warhead. And I would not argue that having missile defense might mean we have to do without some other place – even DOD (if it were up to me, no F-22 but yes to missile defense – higher G than humans can tolerate pilotless aircraft are right around the corner).
Dugger, If he types so poorly, can his thinking be any better?
Dugger, no one said we had a problem with technology. We’d would just rather spend it on something useful.
For instance, instead of spending billions of dollars on a missile defense system which is never going to be 100% effective (and honestly, if we start throwing nukes missiles around the planet, anything less than 100% effective isn’t going to be worth much), we’d rather develop an alternative energy suite that we could export for safety and profit…especially to…oh, I don’t know, lets saaaaay…Iran. Then, they would have NO EXCUSE to be playing with nuclear energy, which means we could convince the rest of the world, even their wayward allies (Like china) that they have no business playing with nukes.
Hell, we don’t even have to use the money to directly fund alternative energy development. All we have to do is set a nice prize, with some pretty high goals, increase the prize amount by 25% percent a year, and watch human ingenuity at work. We’d even have money left over to balance the budget and maybe fix VA since GWB has been ganking us military folks for our benefits to pay for the war we’re dying in…for oil. That we could stop. Especially if we developed (wait for iiiiiit) alternative energy!
Besides, wasn’t it you that was on here crowing about how technology wasn’t a magic bullet that could solve all your problems? Or was that one of your neocon mindslave friends?
DRPedro: corporate welfare has done its job–corporations are wealthier now than ever. What say we discontinue that program, rather than social assistance?
PD100
When the north korean lob one over the horizon, it will be nice to have half a dozen interceptors to shoot the thing down in the 20 minutes we will be watching it.
Otherwise, where is Paul (frameone) going to work if they nuke hollywood? Hell, half the democrats in this country would never get elected if it weren’t for the hollywood limosine liberals…so you see, it is actually in your best interest.
By the way, I am glad to see that english majors are still out there. I haven’t seen so much fluffy prose in a long time…..
And, pedro, you still haven’t pointed out for us where anyone in your linked article says the thing is “operational.”
“As with all weapons programs, an inititial opertaional capabaliy is established and over time the fielded system is improved.”
But investing any money in advancing alternative fuels or stem cells is just leftist liberal claptrap.
“Actully usually the operational capability of anew weapon system is classified so DOD seldom says we now have operational capability – especially if in fact they don t.”
Hey pedro, Dugger thinks your an idiot.
buma and Hattie,
Buma would have us not develop any new weapon systems (develop=new=unproven) and Hattie would not have us develop any weapon systems. No need for Dr Neal Clark Warren. Dugger has found a match for free! No Birkenstock nudging under the cyber table, now!
Dugger
Remember, being “strong on defense” means spending a LOT of money on complicated unproven systems. The current GOP leadership in WH and Congress have been very “strong on defense” and you only need look at the deficit for proof of that.
What do you leftists have against faith-based missile defense? We really, really, really hope it will work. So it will work because God is on our side. End of discussion.
Hattie: Two words for you: Don’t enlist.
Exactly, Buma. It’s god’s will that America will prevail.
I wish the wingnuts would pay for all the big-balls military toys they like instead of making the rest of us pay for them. And furthermore I just wish they would fight the wars themselves instead of making others do it. If it’s what they like, they can bump each other off instead of killing those of us who are not interested in war.
To follow dugger’s line of thinking:
dugger would have us squander tax dollars on every weapons boondoggle that comes along, however expensive, however unreliable, all in the name of strong defense.
frank would have no thinking person enlist.
No more circle-jerks on OW’s blog, guys!
buma: I’ll probably be sorry I asked, but where did you get the idea that I don’t want thinking people to enlist?
Allow me to refresh your memory: Hattie said, “And furthermore I just wish they [the wingnuts] would fight the wars themselves instead of making others do it.
Since no one makes anyone fight anyone anymore*, I suggested that she not enlist, as the people who want to be involved in our military efforts do.
* Hattie, maybe the news hasn’t reached Hawaii yet, but there’s no more Draft.
Frank_D Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Hattie: Two words for you: Don t enlist.
Frank’s senior moment:
Frank_D Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 12:52 am
buma: I ll probably be sorry I asked, but where did you get the idea that I don t want thinking people to enlist?
buma: What are you talking about? Are you having a “liberal moment”?
buma,
Friendly advice, grasshopper. Engage mind first before operating keyboard. DId you not read what I said about the F-22? Has the world changed today and that is not a weapon system? I merely pointed out to you that new weapon development is inherently expensive and inherently unproven – and that if your criteria is to buy only ‘proven’ systems then we will never have new technology weapons.
I don’t know, buma. I may call Dr Neal Clark Warren and tell him you’re not good enough for Hattie. You’re on probation young -err – person.
Dugger, Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man? (Fiddler)