One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
Your right we should have just turned the place into a glass sheet, shot all the survivors, and pumped the oil from the smoking ground. Its such a waste of time trying to turn the place into a democracy. You know if the leftist tree huggers would have let us drill in Anwar, and off the coast of Florida ten years ago we would never have needed to invade Iraq to stabilize our middle eastern oil supply. Noitce how Iraq sits nicely between Iran and the rest of the oil bearing middle east.
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
Your right we should have just turned the place into a glass sheet, shot all the survivors, and pumped the oil from the smoking ground. Its such a waste of time trying to turn the place into a democracy. You know if the leftist tree huggers would have let us drill in Anwar, and off the coast of Florida ten years ago we would never have needed to invade Iraq to stabilize our middle eastern oil supply. Noitce how Iraq sits nicely between Iran and the rest of the oil bearing middle east.
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
isnt that what we are doing? seems like it to me...
There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
That was just wrong on sooooooo many levels..........................................
Whatever happened, it is still The US gov to be blamed. Isn't this their responsibility to make sure bridges are safe. In most countries someone would have to take blame for the crappy maintenance off this bridge.
One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
Your right we should have just turned the place into a glass sheet, shot all the survivors, and pumped the oil from the smoking ground. Its such a waste of time trying to turn the place into a democracy. You know if the leftist tree huggers would have let us drill in Anwar, and off the coast of Florida ten years ago we would never have needed to invade Iraq to stabilize our middle eastern oil supply. Noitce how Iraq sits nicely between Iran and the rest of the oil bearing middle east.
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
isnt that what we are doing? seems like it to me...
You have no idea of the pure destructive power of a modern military machine such as the United States possesses. Right now we are playing nice and fighting the enemy with all but one pinky finger tied behind our backs. When I mean glass sheet I mean glass sheet. No two stones would be left on top of one another. The really gruesome part is we could do all this without exposing a single infantry soldier on the ground. By doing what we are doing now in Iraq we are being nice and tolerant of their systems and beliefs, and yet people still whine. It could be a whole lot worse. Just think what would Hitler or Stalin do in this situation with the weapons the United States has, and been attacked by said Arabs. They would have been obliterated all of them innocent guilty whatever. Nothing but a smoking crater would now exist from Istanbul to the Indus River.
From a casualty point of view it would have been much simpler to obliterate them. So by playing nice we are taking losses that we could have avoided by simply acting like everyone is accusing us of acting instead of this nice guy crap.
You have no idea of the pure destructive power of a modern military machine such as the United States possesses. Right now we are playing nice and fighting the enemy with all but one pinky finger tied behind our backs. When I mean glass sheet I mean glass sheet. No two stones would be left on top of one another. The really gruesome part is we could do all this without exposing a single infantry soldier on the ground. By doing what we are doing now in Iraq we are being nice and tolerant of their systems and beliefs, and yet people still whine.
the stated objective of the war was to stop terrorism.
if i wanted to stop terrorism,and had the full resources of the us behind me,i would identify the families of the 9/11 planners/participants and annihilate them.
innocent people would die,yes,though a lot fewer than are dying now.and a message far more effective than the one being sent would be heard.
we have a system in place whereby the officers are not to be targeted.same ol,same ol
Whatever happened, it is still The US gov to be blamed. Isn't this their responsibility to make sure bridges are safe.
In most countries someone would have to take blame for the crappy maintenance off this bridge. and no, stuff doesn't just happen.
Oh FFS you do know that states technically have the responsibility in most matters pertaining to infrastructure within said state's border? I suppose you want to blame the federal government if a house burns down in your town but your cheap short sighted mayor didn't want to pay for a fire department? On second though don't answer. In the United States State and local governments bear responsibility for a wide variety of things. Including education, the water you drink, the roads you drive on, (why do you think the speed limits are set by the state on not the federal government <hence the reason they vary from state to state>. Does the federal government provide funding to help out the states? Yes but ultimately it is the states that get to decide how to spend said money.
A classic example of a states' responsibilty and how they handled it is Louisiana & Texas and the evacuation for hurricane Katrina and Rita (a mere 3 weeks apart so Texas did not have time to improve their system after Louisiana's epic failure.)
Louisiana failed to utilize the resources it had at hand to evacuate New Orleans a city of 500k in the 48 hours it had to get the people out. Some of my favorite shots are of school buses that could have been used to evacuate those poor people in the Super Dome had the state of Louisiana had a plan. Those buses were sitting by the hundreds in nice pretty rows in six feet of water the following day. Had Louisiana executed it's responisbility to it's citizens in an efficient matter the day after horror shots would have never happend. They had the resources, but failed to use them.
Three weeks later Texas evacuated the entire city of Houston in 24 hours! A city with a population of 4 million! Eight times that of New Orleans. Assuming Rita would have hit Houston directly how many people would have needed to be fished out of their homes......Zero
Of course who got the blame for Louisiana's lousy execution? The Federal government. The more people fail to take responsibility for themselves. The more big brother federal government will invade their lives yet they complain when the federal government lets them act on their own accord. Which way you want it resposibility and control, or no control whatsoever and a one size fits all disaster plan for the country?
A hundred and fifty years ago we fought a civil war because a group of states thought the Federal Government was becoming to dominant in the day to day affairs of the citizens of the United States. Now we seem to have the opposite problem. Come save us from our own stupidity Federal Government and shame on you if you try to let us think and act for ourselves! Save US!!!!!!!!
You have no idea of the pure destructive power of a modern military machine such as the United States possesses. Right now we are playing nice and fighting the enemy with all but one pinky finger tied behind our backs. When I mean glass sheet I mean glass sheet. No two stones would be left on top of one another. The really gruesome part is we could do all this without exposing a single infantry soldier on the ground. By doing what we are doing now in Iraq we are being nice and tolerant of their systems and beliefs, and yet people still whine.
the stated objective of the war was to stop terrorism.
if i wanted to stop terrorism,and had the full resources of the us behind me,i would identify the families of the 9/11 planners/participants and annihilate them.
innocent people would die,yes,though a lot fewer than are dying now.and a message far more effective than the one being sent would be heard.
we have a system in place whereby the officers are not to be targeted.same ol,same ol
Yeah but if you turn said terrorists home country into a smoking crater every time the United States is hit. Soon anyone thinking about violence against the United States would give it up if they truly loved their country. They would not want it becoming the next smoking crater. This would be a great anti-terrorists soultion causing very few US casulties. Again the exercise was to think about how Hitler and Stalin would handle this situation, and compare it to what people are calling "gruesome" <lol yea right> today. Hitler and Stalin would blame everyone of that race, and country not just the leaders and their families.
One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
It is the duty of the local governments to maintain roads and bridges, not the federal government. The Bush administration is in no way responsible for this disaster. Whether or not the bridge was adequately funded has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Historically, 80% of all highway funding has come from the federal level. This includes construction and maintenance.
Please also note that when attempts are made to address the issue at the state level, it's blocked, as it was in Minnesota, by a Republican governor. The GOP didn't used to be this intransigent about maintaining infrastrurcture until it was hijacked by neo-Feudalists in the 1970s.
Our transportation infrastructure is one of our greatest assets, yet over the last 30 years we've been neglecting it because we don't want to spend the money on it.
There's only so much money out there, and the priority, especially over the last six years, is to pour the money into a rathole in Iraq (which has lots of nice little diversionary sluices for maladminstration cronies).
No, far better to piss it away on poorly thought out and utterly unnecessary military operations that cost not just money, but blood.
But I wouldn't expect most of this crowd to grasp that. The occupation of Iraq is just another video game to most of you.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Whatever happened, it is still The US gov to be blamed. Isn't this their responsibility to make sure bridges are safe.
In most countries someone would have to take blame for the crappy maintenance off this bridge. and no, stuff doesn't just happen.
No, as I've already stated, the responsibility to maintain things such as traffic and public bridges rests soley in the hands of the local governments, not the federal government.
And to the poster above me saying that most funding comes from the federal government...most of the money comes in the form of grants that the federal government gives to the state governments in exchange for the state governments doing something FOR the federal government. You know that whole national drinking age? Well the only reason we have one is because the federal government paid the states to enact a universal drinking age...the same is true for the maintinence of roads. The state governments recieve federal money that is supposed to go towards certain things, in some cases that certain thing is the maintinence of roads and bridges.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
It is the duty of the local governments to maintain roads and bridges, not the federal government. The Bush administration is in no way responsible for this disaster. Whether or not the bridge was adequately funded has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Historically, 80% of all highway funding has come from the federal level. This includes construction and maintenance.
Please also note that when attempts are made to address the issue at the state level, it's blocked, as it was in Minnesota, by a Republican governor. The GOP didn't used to be this intransigent about maintaining infrastrurcture until it was hijacked by neo-Feudalists in the 1970s.
Our transportation infrastructure is one of our greatest assets, yet over the last 30 years we've been neglecting it because we don't want to spend the money on it.
There's only so much money out there, and the priority, especially over the last six years, is to pour the money into a rathole in Iraq (which has lots of nice little diversionary sluices for maladminstration cronies).
No, far better to piss it away on poorly thought out and utterly unnecessary military operations that cost not just money, but blood.
But I wouldn't expect most of this crowd to grasp that. The occupation of Iraq is just another video game to most of you.
Do you even know how government funding works? The money that states are recieving is in no way being used in the war in Iraq. Do you really think that funding would get passed if it was all being pulled from the states that the Senators are so worried aren't going to reelect them? No of course not. The blame rests soley on Minnesota in this case. The War in Iraq has nothing to do with this tragedy and anyone that tries to claim otherwise is just a politcal hack trying to make use of a situation.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
the problem is lone nutballs.they don't care about their home nation. as we progress they'll get their hands on more powerful weapons than airliners
Yeah fortunatly we do not do that to everyone that commits an act of war agaisnt the United States. I was just trying to define the word gruesome tactics to those that do not understand the meaning of the word. We are being extremly generous and patient with the people of Iraq. Gruesome would involve large scale destruction seizing of land/resources and enslavement of the surviving population.
One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
Your right we should have just turned the place into a glass sheet, shot all the survivors, and pumped the oil from the smoking ground. Its such a waste of time trying to turn the place into a democracy. You know if the leftist tree huggers would have let us drill in Anwar, and off the coast of Florida ten years ago we would never have needed to invade Iraq to stabilize our middle eastern oil supply. Noitce how Iraq sits nicely between Iran and the rest of the oil bearing middle east.
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
isnt that what we are doing? seems like it to me...
You have no idea of the pure destructive power of a modern military machine such as the United States possesses. Right now we are playing nice and fighting the enemy with all but one pinky finger tied behind our backs. When I mean glass sheet I mean glass sheet. No two stones would be left on top of one another. The really gruesome part is we could do all this without exposing a single infantry soldier on the ground. By doing what we are doing now in Iraq we are being nice and tolerant of their systems and beliefs, and yet people still whine. It could be a whole lot worse. Just think what would Hitler or Stalin do in this situation with the weapons the United States has, and been attacked by said Arabs. They would have been obliterated all of them innocent guilty whatever. Nothing but a smoking crater would now exist from Istanbul to the Indus River.
From a casualty point of view it would have been much simpler to obliterate them. So by playing nice we are taking losses that we could have avoided by simply acting like everyone is accusing us of acting instead of this nice guy crap.
It's very true. considering the types of missiles (guided, longrange tactical nukes for one), we could very well have done just that and wouldn't have taken more thaan a couple hours for the "war" to have been over. Look at what happened when we threw down some nukes on Japan.
Noone fucked with us after that for a long time. Sure, they sabre-rattled (like when Castro got punked by Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis, but noone flat out tried to come at us.
When we signed treaties and started dismantling warheads (which I know as well as anyone else, we didn't get rid of even half of what we said we did, and you know damn well Russia and others have their own little hidden stockpiles).
So yeah, the world does need to takes a step back, and remember that we ARE the worlds Superpower, nuclear and otherwise, and what we've done in this war is nowhere near what we would be capable of if the "safeties" were flipped off.
And you wanna guess who our real first nuclear wipeout will end up being, at least from what I see right now? Two choices: Iran if they keep stirring their shit up, or North Korea if somebody doesn't manage to take out that little pygmy Elvis-impersonating wannabe they let throw little temper tantrums and call it "ruling". Lil' Kim ( as I non-affectionately like to call him) is the biggest danger and threat right now as far as a nuclear war.
So basically, anyone who wants to sit back in teir comfy chairs at home and berate the U.S. for it's "deplorable" actions regarding the current war, take a step back and thank whatever diety you worship, if you have one, that we HAVE shown considerable restraint and compassion. Bitch about it later, if our restraint and compassion run out, or if we are pushed to have no other alternative (which is what countries such as Iran and North Korea are attempting to achieve).
One can say that the current Republican approach to government did this...the chronic deferral of infrastructure maintenance by not funding it because raising taxes to do it is, according to Republicans, evil. Minnesota is one of the states that tried to buck this trend, but their GOP governor just got through vetoing a bill that would have devoted more funds to infrastructure maintenance. There are literally hundreds of thousands of bridges in the US that need attention, but the funds to insure they are safe are not there...the money is being squandered in the endless immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
It is the duty of the local governments to maintain roads and bridges, not the federal government. The Bush administration is in no way responsible for this disaster. Whether or not the bridge was adequately funded has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Historically, 80% of all highway funding has come from the federal level. This includes construction and maintenance.
Please also note that when attempts are made to address the issue at the state level, it's blocked, as it was in Minnesota, by a Republican governor. The GOP didn't used to be this intransigent about maintaining infrastrurcture until it was hijacked by neo-Feudalists in the 1970s.
Our transportation infrastructure is one of our greatest assets, yet over the last 30 years we've been neglecting it because we don't want to spend the money on it.
There's only so much money out there, and the priority, especially over the last six years, is to pour the money into a rathole in Iraq (which has lots of nice little diversionary sluices for maladminstration cronies).
No, far better to piss it away on poorly thought out and utterly unnecessary military operations that cost not just money, but blood.
But I wouldn't expect most of this crowd to grasp that. The occupation of Iraq is just another video game to most of you.
Your right there is a sizeable amount of funding that comes from the Federal level, but ultimately the states decides how to spend it.
I spent a year in the middle east and it sucks plain and simple. If the tree huggers would have let us drill in Anwar, and off the Florida Keys (yeah they really don't want you to know about that oil field Cuba has contracted China to get their part of it) then we wouldn't have to fool with those nut cases. Yet in the same breath they jump up and down about the war. The country needs energy plain and simple allow it to get it from domestic sources, or expect us to have to continually send troops in to stabilize our foreign sources. Raising taxes on those providing the product was just plain idiotic too. By reducing the profit incentive it will cause those with capital to invest it in other more profitable activities.
the problem is lone nutballs.they don't care about their home nation. as we progress they'll get their hands on more powerful weapons than airliners
Yeah fortunatly we do not do that to everyone that commits an act of war agaisnt the United States. I was just trying to define the word gruesome tactics to those that do not understand the meaning of the word. We are being extremly generous and patient with the people of Iraq. Gruesome would involve large scale destruction seizing of land/resources and enslavement of the surviving population.
large scale destruction and seizing of resources/enslavement..yeah
history of the world part 1
the leaders order us to kill them so "we" can utilize their resources.they're bad,mkay
one group wins,the other loses.
the winning groups leaders profit,the losing groups leaders hide.
both groups "plebs" die in the millions
fcuk them.in any advanced nation we can trade for what we need.it might take longer to advance but at least those dipshtits don't profit while we die.tell them to build a defence that guarantees mutual destruction if they attack..oh wait,we already have that
You can blame different governments all you want, but it really comes down to the civil engineer and his team that designed it. There's some dumb CE's out there, and no matter how well maintained a crappy bridge is, it's still a crappy bridge. I expect the engineer to get sued heavily for this one.
Engineering mistakes happen all the time, 1 in 4 Americans are retarded.
the problem is lone nutballs.they don't care about their home nation. as we progress they'll get their hands on more powerful weapons than airliners
Yeah fortunatly we do not do that to everyone that commits an act of war agaisnt the United States. I was just trying to define the word gruesome tactics to those that do not understand the meaning of the word. We are being extremly generous and patient with the people of Iraq. Gruesome would involve large scale destruction seizing of land/resources and enslavement of the surviving population.
large scale destruction and seizing of resources/enslavement..yeah
history of the world part 1
the leaders order us to kill them so "we" can utilize their resources.they're bad,mkay
one group wins,the other loses.
the winning groups leaders profit,the losing groups leaders hide.
both groups "plebs" die in the millions
fcuk them.in any advanced nation we can trade for what we need.it might take longer to advance but at least those dipshtits don't profit while we die.tell them to build a defence that guarantees mutual destruction if they attack..oh wait,we already have that
Again this is a new day and age. If we totally disregard enemy civilian casulties we can crush the entire Arab world without exposing any ground troops to direct danger. Given the way remote technology is unfolding in ten years or so we won't even need to expose pilots to that danger (not that the Arab nations have much in the way of air defence). If the Arabs had this level of power with their deep seeeded hatred of western civilization they would use it on us in a heartbeat. Again the whole point of the argument was to prove we are not using "gruesome" tactics in the Middle East. In fact by playing nice we have increased our exposure and therefore our casulties. Because of our cultural maturity we are taking losses that we do not have too because we are trying to respect their rights and civilization. It just never struck me as wise to make peace at any cost with a people that want us dead. I know its hard to understand this mindset unless you have spent some time in the middle east, but its the way of things. If we pulled out tommrow and left them alone for 500 years they would still want us dead. They have proven it over and over again since the 630s.
you would need to blow a chunk off the side of the earth and even then it would remain.
mass annihilation of these people will not work.
i'm not disputing avoidable casualties are being taken by the west,i don't think anyone is.we need to lead by example,the trickle down effect works with weapons too..one day weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of nutters,no doubt about it.
we need to move off the planet before that day arrives.spend more on defensive systems and space exploration imo
Comments
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
when the hell did you get back.......
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
isnt that what we are doing? seems like it to me...
this is what rly happened lostsupermariobrotherslevel.ytmnd.com/
That was just wrong on sooooooo many levels..........................................
Whatever happened, it is still The US gov to be blamed. Isn't this their responsibility to make sure bridges are safe.
In most countries someone would have to take blame for the crappy maintenance off this bridge.
and no, stuff doesn't just happen.
My cool sig: Turrets suck.
Yea and i'm fucking santa claus....
close.it was nasa
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
isnt that what we are doing? seems like it to me...
You have no idea of the pure destructive power of a modern military machine such as the United States possesses. Right now we are playing nice and fighting the enemy with all but one pinky finger tied behind our backs. When I mean glass sheet I mean glass sheet. No two stones would be left on top of one another. The really gruesome part is we could do all this without exposing a single infantry soldier on the ground. By doing what we are doing now in Iraq we are being nice and tolerant of their systems and beliefs, and yet people still whine. It could be a whole lot worse. Just think what would Hitler or Stalin do in this situation with the weapons the United States has, and been attacked by said Arabs. They would have been obliterated all of them innocent guilty whatever. Nothing but a smoking crater would now exist from Istanbul to the Indus River.
From a casualty point of view it would have been much simpler to obliterate them. So by playing nice we are taking losses that we could have avoided by simply acting like everyone is accusing us of acting instead of this nice guy crap.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
if i wanted to stop terrorism,and had the full resources of the us behind me,i would identify the families of the 9/11 planners/participants and annihilate them.
innocent people would die,yes,though a lot fewer than are dying now.and a message far more effective than the one being sent would be heard.
we have a system in place whereby the officers are not to be targeted.same ol,same ol
A classic example of a states' responsibilty and how they handled it is Louisiana & Texas and the evacuation for hurricane Katrina and Rita (a mere 3 weeks apart so Texas did not have time to improve their system after Louisiana's epic failure.)
Louisiana failed to utilize the resources it had at hand to evacuate New Orleans a city of 500k in the 48 hours it had to get the people out. Some of my favorite shots are of school buses that could have been used to evacuate those poor people in the Super Dome had the state of Louisiana had a plan. Those buses were sitting by the hundreds in nice pretty rows in six feet of water the following day. Had Louisiana executed it's responisbility to it's citizens in an efficient matter the day after horror shots would have never happend. They had the resources, but failed to use them.
Three weeks later Texas evacuated the entire city of Houston in 24 hours! A city with a population of 4 million! Eight times that of New Orleans. Assuming Rita would have hit Houston directly how many people would have needed to be fished out of their homes......Zero
Of course who got the blame for Louisiana's lousy execution? The Federal government. The more people fail to take responsibility for themselves. The more big brother federal government will invade their lives yet they complain when the federal government lets them act on their own accord. Which way you want it resposibility and control, or no control whatsoever and a one size fits all disaster plan for the country?
A hundred and fifty years ago we fought a civil war because a group of states thought the Federal Government was becoming to dominant in the day to day affairs of the citizens of the United States. Now we seem to have the opposite problem. Come save us from our own stupidity Federal Government and shame on you if you try to let us think and act for ourselves! Save US!!!!!!!!
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
if i wanted to stop terrorism,and had the full resources of the us behind me,i would identify the families of the 9/11 planners/participants and annihilate them.
innocent people would die,yes,though a lot fewer than are dying now.and a message far more effective than the one being sent would be heard.
we have a system in place whereby the officers are not to be targeted.same ol,same ol
Yeah but if you turn said terrorists home country into a smoking crater every time the United States is hit. Soon anyone thinking about violence against the United States would give it up if they truly loved their country. They would not want it becoming the next smoking crater. This would be a great anti-terrorists soultion causing very few US casulties. Again the exercise was to think about how Hitler and Stalin would handle this situation, and compare it to what people are calling "gruesome" <lol yea right> today. Hitler and Stalin would blame everyone of that race, and country not just the leaders and their families.<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
the problem is lone nutballs.they don't care about their home nation.
as we progress they'll get their hands on more powerful weapons than airliners
It is the duty of the local governments to maintain roads and bridges, not the federal government. The Bush administration is in no way responsible for this disaster. Whether or not the bridge was adequately funded has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Historically, 80% of all highway funding has come from the federal level. This includes construction and maintenance.
Please also note that when attempts are made to address the issue at the state level, it's blocked, as it was in Minnesota, by a Republican governor. The GOP didn't used to be this intransigent about maintaining infrastrurcture until it was hijacked by neo-Feudalists in the 1970s.
Our transportation infrastructure is one of our greatest assets, yet over the last 30 years we've been neglecting it because we don't want to spend the money on it.
There's only so much money out there, and the priority, especially over the last six years, is to pour the money into a rathole in Iraq (which has lots of nice little diversionary sluices for maladminstration cronies).
No, far better to piss it away on poorly thought out and utterly unnecessary military operations that cost not just money, but blood.
But I wouldn't expect most of this crowd to grasp that. The occupation of Iraq is just another video game to most of you.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
No, as I've already stated, the responsibility to maintain things such as traffic and public bridges rests soley in the hands of the local governments, not the federal government.
And to the poster above me saying that most funding comes from the federal government...most of the money comes in the form of grants that the federal government gives to the state governments in exchange for the state governments doing something FOR the federal government. You know that whole national drinking age? Well the only reason we have one is because the federal government paid the states to enact a universal drinking age...the same is true for the maintinence of roads. The state governments recieve federal money that is supposed to go towards certain things, in some cases that certain thing is the maintinence of roads and bridges.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
It is the duty of the local governments to maintain roads and bridges, not the federal government. The Bush administration is in no way responsible for this disaster. Whether or not the bridge was adequately funded has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Historically, 80% of all highway funding has come from the federal level. This includes construction and maintenance.
Please also note that when attempts are made to address the issue at the state level, it's blocked, as it was in Minnesota, by a Republican governor. The GOP didn't used to be this intransigent about maintaining infrastrurcture until it was hijacked by neo-Feudalists in the 1970s.
Our transportation infrastructure is one of our greatest assets, yet over the last 30 years we've been neglecting it because we don't want to spend the money on it.
There's only so much money out there, and the priority, especially over the last six years, is to pour the money into a rathole in Iraq (which has lots of nice little diversionary sluices for maladminstration cronies).
No, far better to piss it away on poorly thought out and utterly unnecessary military operations that cost not just money, but blood.
But I wouldn't expect most of this crowd to grasp that. The occupation of Iraq is just another video game to most of you.
Do you even know how government funding works? The money that states are recieving is in no way being used in the war in Iraq. Do you really think that funding would get passed if it was all being pulled from the states that the Senators are so worried aren't going to reelect them? No of course not. The blame rests soley on Minnesota in this case. The War in Iraq has nothing to do with this tragedy and anyone that tries to claim otherwise is just a politcal hack trying to make use of a situation.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Yeah fortunatly we do not do that to everyone that commits an act of war agaisnt the United States. I was just trying to define the word gruesome tactics to those that do not understand the meaning of the word. We are being extremly generous and patient with the people of Iraq. Gruesome would involve large scale destruction seizing of land/resources and enslavement of the surviving population.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Its amazing how you can take any fact and twist it to support your political agenda isn't it?
isnt that what we are doing? seems like it to me...
You have no idea of the pure destructive power of a modern military machine such as the United States possesses. Right now we are playing nice and fighting the enemy with all but one pinky finger tied behind our backs. When I mean glass sheet I mean glass sheet. No two stones would be left on top of one another. The really gruesome part is we could do all this without exposing a single infantry soldier on the ground. By doing what we are doing now in Iraq we are being nice and tolerant of their systems and beliefs, and yet people still whine. It could be a whole lot worse. Just think what would Hitler or Stalin do in this situation with the weapons the United States has, and been attacked by said Arabs. They would have been obliterated all of them innocent guilty whatever. Nothing but a smoking crater would now exist from Istanbul to the Indus River.
From a casualty point of view it would have been much simpler to obliterate them. So by playing nice we are taking losses that we could have avoided by simply acting like everyone is accusing us of acting instead of this nice guy crap.
It's very true. considering the types of missiles (guided, longrange tactical nukes for one), we could very well have done just that and wouldn't have taken more thaan a couple hours for the "war" to have been over. Look at what happened when we threw down some nukes on Japan.
Noone fucked with us after that for a long time. Sure, they sabre-rattled (like when Castro got punked by Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis, but noone flat out tried to come at us.
When we signed treaties and started dismantling warheads (which I know as well as anyone else, we didn't get rid of even half of what we said we did, and you know damn well Russia and others have their own little hidden stockpiles).
So yeah, the world does need to takes a step back, and remember that we ARE the worlds Superpower, nuclear and otherwise, and what we've done in this war is nowhere near what we would be capable of if the "safeties" were flipped off.
And you wanna guess who our real first nuclear wipeout will end up being, at least from what I see right now? Two choices: Iran if they keep stirring their shit up, or North Korea if somebody doesn't manage to take out that little pygmy Elvis-impersonating wannabe they let throw little temper tantrums and call it "ruling". Lil' Kim ( as I non-affectionately like to call him) is the biggest danger and threat right now as far as a nuclear war.
So basically, anyone who wants to sit back in teir comfy chairs at home and berate the U.S. for it's "deplorable" actions regarding the current war, take a step back and thank whatever diety you worship, if you have one, that we HAVE shown considerable restraint and compassion. Bitch about it later, if our restraint and compassion run out, or if we are pushed to have no other alternative (which is what countries such as Iran and North Korea are attempting to achieve).
It is the duty of the local governments to maintain roads and bridges, not the federal government. The Bush administration is in no way responsible for this disaster. Whether or not the bridge was adequately funded has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Historically, 80% of all highway funding has come from the federal level. This includes construction and maintenance.
Please also note that when attempts are made to address the issue at the state level, it's blocked, as it was in Minnesota, by a Republican governor. The GOP didn't used to be this intransigent about maintaining infrastrurcture until it was hijacked by neo-Feudalists in the 1970s.
Our transportation infrastructure is one of our greatest assets, yet over the last 30 years we've been neglecting it because we don't want to spend the money on it.
There's only so much money out there, and the priority, especially over the last six years, is to pour the money into a rathole in Iraq (which has lots of nice little diversionary sluices for maladminstration cronies).
No, far better to piss it away on poorly thought out and utterly unnecessary military operations that cost not just money, but blood.
But I wouldn't expect most of this crowd to grasp that. The occupation of Iraq is just another video game to most of you.
Your right there is a sizeable amount of funding that comes from the Federal level, but ultimately the states decides how to spend it.I spent a year in the middle east and it sucks plain and simple. If the tree huggers would have let us drill in Anwar, and off the Florida Keys (yeah they really don't want you to know about that oil field Cuba has contracted China to get their part of it) then we wouldn't have to fool with those nut cases. Yet in the same breath they jump up and down about the war. The country needs energy plain and simple allow it to get it from domestic sources, or expect us to have to continually send troops in to stabilize our foreign sources. Raising taxes on those providing the product was just plain idiotic too. By reducing the profit incentive it will cause those with capital to invest it in other more profitable activities.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Teacher: "No bridge, this is a short answer test."
Teacher: "No bridge, this is a short answer test."
Of course, due to its' enrollment in public school, Bridge went on to graduate, and promptly collapse after inhaling too much gold spray paint.Please, make a difference, talk to your bridges about drugs, they'll listen.
large scale destruction and seizing of resources/enslavement..yeahYeah fortunatly we do not do that to everyone that commits an act of war agaisnt the United States. I was just trying to define the word gruesome tactics to those that do not understand the meaning of the word. We are being extremly generous and patient with the people of Iraq. Gruesome would involve large scale destruction seizing of land/resources and enslavement of the surviving population.
history of the world part 1
the leaders order us to kill them so "we" can utilize their resources.they're bad,mkay
one group wins,the other loses.
the winning groups leaders profit,the losing groups leaders hide.
both groups "plebs" die in the millions
fcuk them.in any advanced nation we can trade for what we need.it might take longer to advance but at least those dipshtits don't profit while we die.tell them to build a defence that guarantees mutual destruction if they attack..oh wait,we already have that
You can blame different governments all you want, but it really comes down to the civil engineer and his team that designed it. There's some dumb CE's out there, and no matter how well maintained a crappy bridge is, it's still a crappy bridge. I expect the engineer to get sued heavily for this one.
Engineering mistakes happen all the time, 1 in 4 Americans are retarded.
large scale destruction and seizing of resources/enslavement..yeahYeah fortunatly we do not do that to everyone that commits an act of war agaisnt the United States. I was just trying to define the word gruesome tactics to those that do not understand the meaning of the word. We are being extremly generous and patient with the people of Iraq. Gruesome would involve large scale destruction seizing of land/resources and enslavement of the surviving population.
history of the world part 1
the leaders order us to kill them so "we" can utilize their resources.they're bad,mkay
one group wins,the other loses.
the winning groups leaders profit,the losing groups leaders hide.
both groups "plebs" die in the millions
fcuk them.in any advanced nation we can trade for what we need.it might take longer to advance but at least those dipshtits don't profit while we die.tell them to build a defence that guarantees mutual destruction if they attack..oh wait,we already have that
Again this is a new day and age. If we totally disregard enemy civilian casulties we can crush the entire Arab world without exposing any ground troops to direct danger. Given the way remote technology is unfolding in ten years or so we won't even need to expose pilots to that danger (not that the Arab nations have much in the way of air defence). If the Arabs had this level of power with their deep seeeded hatred of western civilization they would use it on us in a heartbeat. Again the whole point of the argument was to prove we are not using "gruesome" tactics in the Middle East. In fact by playing nice we have increased our exposure and therefore our casulties. Because of our cultural maturity we are taking losses that we do not have too because we are trying to respect their rights and civilization. It just never struck me as wise to make peace at any cost with a people that want us dead. I know its hard to understand this mindset unless you have spent some time in the middle east, but its the way of things. If we pulled out tommrow and left them alone for 500 years they would still want us dead. They have proven it over and over again since the 630s.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
how do you propose to erase their religion?
you would need to blow a chunk off the side of the earth and even then it would remain.
mass annihilation of these people will not work.
i'm not disputing avoidable casualties are being taken by the west,i don't think anyone is.we need to lead by example,the trickle down effect works with weapons too..one day weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of nutters,no doubt about it.
we need to move off the planet before that day arrives.spend more on defensive systems and space exploration imo