19 Jun 09
5 edits
In my last thread I have determined that the next great push for entitlements may come in the form of a world wide system. Universal health care may truly be universal one day. For example, the UN has made the suggestion to tax people globally for a welfare fund for the worlds poor so why not medical coverage as well?
So if I am right, who out there agrees with this idea and who does not? Why or why not?
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyit would be a cold day in hell before I paid a single red cent to the u.n.
In my last thread I have determined that the next great push for entitlements may come in the form of a world wide system. Universal health care may truly be universal one day. For example, the UN has made the suggestion to tax people globally for a welfare fund for the worlds poor so why not medical coverage as well?
So if I am right, who out there agrees with this idea and who does not? Why or why not?
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyNot a bad theory, but with too many countries trying to manage this system, I doubt it will ever happen.😏
In my last thread I have determined that the next great push for entitlements may come in the form of a world wide system. Universal health care may truly be universal one day. For example, the UN has made the suggestion to tax people globally for a welfare fund for the worlds poor so why not medical coverage as well?
So if I am right, who out there agrees with this idea and who does not? Why or why not?
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziPeace?Buying tanks and a oversize military?Why do you think The United States has never been taken over? You think before an enemy nation attacks they give warning,"by the way america,we will be attacking soon.You might want to buy some more tanks and build your troops up a little more before we start." Ya!OK!
buying tanks and paying for an oversize military in a time of peace is much more useful.
As far as not paying a tax to the u.n.,this is a sovereign nation pal.
19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonIceland has not had a standing army for almost 150 years. Why hasn't it been invaded?
Peace?Buying tanks and a oversize military?Why do you think The United States has never been taken over? You think before an enemy nation attacks they give warning,"by the way america,we will be attacking soon.You might want to buy some more tanks and build your troops up a little more before we start." Ya!OK!
As far as not paying a tax to the u.n.,this is a sovereign nation pal.
19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonHow big was America's standing army at the start of WWII? Small. Did we get any warning before we were attacked? No. Did we win that war anyway? Yes, as a matter of fact we did. Has utherpendragon's theory about the necessity of maintaining an oversize military been thoroughly discredited? Yes, it has.
Peace?Buying tanks and a oversize military?Why do you think The United States has never been taken over? You think before an enemy nation attacks they give warning,"by the way america,we will be attacking soon.You might want to buy some more tanks and build your troops up a little more before we start." Ya!OK!
As far as not paying a tax to the u.n.,this is a sovereign nation pal.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettNo,I think not.We learn from our mistakes for one.and secondly in the summer of 1941 Our Army had 1,400,000,w/ a much smaller population.What is our Army now? and our population? YOU do the math Einstein.
How big was America's standing army at the start of WWII? Small. Did we get any warning before we were attacked? No. Did we win that war anyway? Yes, as a matter of fact we did. Has utherpendragon's theory about the necessity of maintaining an oversize military been thoroughly discredited? Yes, it has.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe main reason that the policy of having a large standing army has been discredited is that wars no longer involve major clashes on the battlefield between large numbers of troops. Modern wars between nations are technology-centred, not manpower-centred; they are more likely to involve intensive aerial bombing than intensive combat on the ground between armies.
No,I think not.We learn from our mistakes for one.and secondly in the summer of 1941 Our Army had 1,400,000,w/ a much smaller population.What is our Army now? and our population? YOU do the math Einstein.
The other reason, in the specific case of the US, is that - which country do you imagine is going to attempt a full land invasion of the US?
My prediction for the 21st century is that the most destructive violence is going to come in the form of civil wars, guerilla conflicts and terrorist attacks. Lebanon and Yugoslavia look more like the future to me than anything resembling World War II.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettKids, we need the oversized military to go over seas and protect our energy sources such as Saudia Arabia. That means going over there and taking over countries like Iraq. So what is being done by this currenct administration to relieve us of this foriegn oil burden? You guessed it, we will simply tax it until it is unaffordable. Brilliant!!!!
How big was America's standing army at the start of WWII? Small. Did we get any warning before we were attacked? No. Did we win that war anyway? Yes, as a matter of fact we did. Has utherpendragon's theory about the necessity of maintaining an oversize military been thoroughly discredited? Yes, it has.