US Spending in War on Terror

[Гражданин СССР]

Well actually its next 22 countries and the final comes out to around 519.825 bil for them vs. 518.100 bil for US. But anyways, yeah that money was thrown away, even though some of it was reinjected into the economy still most of it disappeared and basically there is NOTHING Bush has to show for wasting all those billions of dollars. Middle East just became more unstable, Osama still running around, no WMDs found in Iraq, people now know about the secret prisoner camps in Eastern Europe there US tortured people, the gas prices are going up (per barrel, I am not saying that US oil companies are not using the psychological side of the war in Middle East to increase the US gas pump prices beyond what they should be), everyone hates US, nations like Ukraine and Georgia are getting accepted into NATO without NATO and are ready to pull that alliance into a ditch. If they join NATO they will probably leave SNG, and if they leave SNG then Russia who is the only thing that keeps their economies floating will then strip them of the SNG priveleges and their screwed and then NATO, US and EU will have to mop up the mess those countries are going to turn into to save their own faces. Basically they will have to support roughly 53 million people all by themselves. There is no way you guys will be able to save the situation from collapsing and don't wait for cooperation from Russia, you're claiming our turf and we're not gonna help you do it. Now before you guys start questioning me, look at this, trade with Russia is 16% of all of Georgia's trade, Russian trade with Georgia is only .1% of all Russian trade. We also privde a bit over 50% of Georgian energy resources. As for Ukraine, they can't live without our natural gas and other exports plus their population is highly against entering NATO, there might be a revolution violent revolution brewing. For example population of Crimea is 90% Russian, Crimea was given to Ukraine as a gift in the early 90s, it seems that we might be getting it back soon.

[AZN_FLEA]

Originally Posted by Гражданин СССР

Eh...actually they probably know more about politics then the monkey man thats in the white house right now. The debt has already increased exponentially all thanks to Mr. Dubai and his eh... "wisdom".

Iraq was selling oil before you invaded it, now its not and it won't for a long time. And since the prices on gas in US are going up you must see that something was done wrong. Getting oil was never a problem, you can always find suppliers if you look in the right places. Invading Iraq was a mistake, nobody can deny that now.

the oil prices are rising in US because the oil they confiscated from iraq is in their strategic reserve. (i think).

there is no doubt that it was a mistake. invading north korea would have benfitted more people much more. korea still has compulsory military service because of north korea. it would be nice to see that go away. military service can make someone get a slow start to their career.
and north korea can potentially cripple the US with their bombs ( unlikely).

btw your last post...WMD is just an excuse for invading iraq. they prolly went their to get the oil. and anyway arent you russian? arent you suppose to oppose the US because of the cold war?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by AZN_FLEA

there is no doubt that it was a mistake. invading north korea would have benfitted more people much more.

How exactly would starting a nuclear war be more beneficial? North Korea is invaded, then what? Nuclear weapons are going to hit South Korea, Japan, China, or another country. Even if you view the Iraq War as a complete waste, the cost of invading North Korea would be far greater, particularly in the civilian sector.

[Lizardbreath]

I like it how the russian on this board touts about how his country is so fantastic when Russia is not exactly the best country in the world when it comes to how to properly run an economy and control it's people.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by AZN_FLEA

btw your last post...WMD is just an excuse for invading iraq. they prolly went their to get the oil. and anyway arent you russian? arent you suppose to oppose the US because of the cold war?

I choose to look at things objectively. I do oppose current US foreign policy but I don't view US as my nation's enemy or a threat to my nation. We got common interests, but thats beyond the point. I don't get your reasoning, how did I support US with my argument?

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

I like it how the russian on this board touts about how his country is so fantastic when Russia is not exactly the best country in the world when it comes to how to properly run an economy and control it's people.

I am not saying its fantastic I am saying we don't have as much BS over here as you guys do in US. Economy? People? Hmm...lets see. Gazprom became world's 3rd largest company (beat Microsoft) in just 4 years. Russian economy has quadrupled in size in 4 years and is still rising, we are increasing trade with European nations and the national projects are putting all the billions of dollars we got from our energy exports into the advanced manufacturing (amongst many other things). Our economy is evolving. We are predicted to have half the total capitol of US in just 10 years, and without the 8 trillion dollar debt. I'd say we're doing something right economy wise. As for our people? What are you talking about? Chechnya? Its over. Dagestan? Well it must be dealt with and it is being dealt with. What else are you talking about?

[KCspdracer]

War in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Control of oil, money for big time contractors such as Haliburton, and building military bases so Iraq can be used as a staging point to launch attacks against other countries.

WMD's? Yo word up Bush. We gave Saddam those chemical weapons back in the early 80's. And we gave Saddam the weapons and the money to attack Iran. This Iraq invasion was a sham. There was no threat. Saddam wasnt going to nuke America. Just like Iran isnt going to nuke America.

So whats being done over there? Well lets see there are a dozen military bases being built. 2 of them are bigger than most here in the US. A billion dollar US embassy is being built. It will have swimming pools, Tennis courts, it's own power, water and filtration system.

The Iraqi's have............well half of Baghdag is still in the dark, food and water are in short supply. There's a civil war going on now. Yeah things are going great. "Mission accomplished"?

[B~E]

Originally Posted by Гражданин СССР

I choose to look at things objectively. I do oppose current US foreign policy but I don't view US as my nation's enemy or a threat to my nation. We got common interests, but thats beyond the point. I don't get your reasoning, how did I support US with my argument?



I am not saying its fantastic I am saying we don't have as much BS over here as you guys do in US. Economy? People? Hmm...lets see. Gazprom became world's 3rd largest company (beat Microsoft) in just 4 years. Russian economy has quadrupled in size in 4 years and is still rising, we are increasing trade with European nations and the national projects are putting all the billions of dollars we got from our energy exports into the advanced manufacturing (amongst many other things). Our economy is evolving. We are predicted to have half the total capitol of US in just 10 years, and without the 8 trillion dollar debt. I'd say we're doing something right economy wise. As for our people? What are you talking about? Chechnya? Its over. Dagestan? Well it must be dealt with and it is being dealt with. What else are you talking about?

I agree with that. Especialy the part about having cleared your debt. It'll be interesting to see what an unchained Russia will do next. But, what about your demographic problem? You're losing 700 000 people a year. And a shrinking population is terribly painfull, economicaly speaking. Although your problem isn't much more sever than ours, at least here we're capable of dealing with it with immigration and subsequent and highly effective integration policies.

Lower birth rates and higher death rates reduced Russia's population at a 0.5% annual rate during the 1990s. This rate however is accelerating. For every 1,000 Russians there are 16 deaths and just 10.6 births leading to a population decline of about 750,000 to 800,000 a year. The UN warned that Russia's 2005 population of about 140 million could fall by a third by 2050. Though the number of Russians living in poverty has halved since the economic crisis following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the improving economy has had a positive impact on the country's low birth-rate (According to the US Census Bureau the nadir was 8.27 per 1000 in 1999 the 2006 rate is estimated at 9.95 per 1000. For comparison the US birh rate in 2006 is 14.14 and the current UK birth rate is 10.71 per 1000).

By comparison, in many developed countries birth rates have also dropped below the long-term population replacement rate, most countries use immigration to avoid the population actually declining. Population decline is particularly drastic in Russia, with higher death rates especially among working-age males due to poverty, abuse of alcohol and other substances, disease, stress, and other afflictions. (According to the US Census Bureau the death rate in 1989 was 10.76 per 1000, the low point came in 2001 at 15.45 per 1000, the 2006 rate is estimated at 14.65. For comparison the current US death rate is 8.26 per 1000 and the UK death rate is 10.13 per 1000) Russians mostly disapprove of permanent or temporary immigration of working-age males from countries other than the Russian-speaking former Soviet states.

[Гражданин СССР]

Well things are being done to counter this population decline crisis, for example the national project that will grant a very nice amount of money to families with two or more kids. Right now the reason people aren't having kids is because they are afraid that they won't be able to feed them, as the living standards rise so will the birthrate, your own data talks about that there it says that birth rate in Russia has actually increased since the 90s.

[Laharl]

Then again, the war in Afghanistan really had nothing to do with the "War on Terror" (Which should be renamed to the "War on American Enemies").

Open question: What would the Bush administration do if the Iraqi people had voted in a 'terrorist'?

[B~E]

Originally Posted by Гражданин СССР

Well things are being done to counter this population decline crisis, for example the national project that will grant a very nice amount of money to families with two or more kids. Right now the reason people aren't having kids is because they are afraid that they won't be able to feed them, as the living standards rise so will the birthrate, your own data talks about that there it says that birth rate in Russia has actually increased since the 90s.

Well, every country with rising living standards were suffering simultaneously from declining birthrates. This is true for every western countries, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and even China and India, who's birth rates are expected to fall under the replacement level before 2015 for China, and 2020-2025 for India. So, the same thing is expected to happen to Russia, too. Rising living standards are the ennemy of a healty demography. But maybe there isn't a solution to this problem. As such, it is best to put your bet on surviving the comming crisie, not dodging it.

Now, in this world where even Asia will have to count on immigration to reverse the declining population problem, where will the immigrants come from? Indeed, just like there is a competition now for raw material, water and oil, in the future, I say we will have a world-wide competition for skilled labor.

[Гражданин СССР]

I really don't see how that is so. With rise of living standards people are more likely to have a child because they know they can financially afford it. Also China is not a good example, its government has taken particular steps to reduce its population like only allowing one child per couple and such. Living standards in India are still very poor, Russia is actually experiencing a reduction of the decline in population.

[B~E]

"I really don't see how that is so. With rise of living standards people are more likely to have a child because they know they can financially afford it."

I agree that it sounds like common sense, but this is just not what is happening around the world. There is a demographic implosion, and it is only happening in developed countries. So I believe that the reasons behind the problem have to be somehow linked to the material conditions brought about a successful market economy.

For exemple, rise of living standards means more than just "more monies for the familly". It means that the male and female are more likely to experience a career, which will incite them to have a smaller familly latter in life.

Also, higher standards means higher prices for education and housing, which is another important incentive that work against the concept of a large familly.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Гражданин СССР

Basically, you don't care, you're an idiot, most americans are slowly waking up from that pipedream that made them pick the monkey guy at the last presidential elections. Look at his bloody aprooval rating.

you know the media swears up and down that this is a national approval rating. Im wondering who the hell they polled to get these %'s. Im an eligable voter of the united states....I voted when Bush ran for his Second term. Why the hell have I not been polled? These %'s are honestly worthless and so Is Americas media. Quit trying to be like America -- putting your nose in other peoples buisness.

[x42bn6]

The point of a sampling poll is to derive a useful idea of a population based upon a sample. Polling the entire nation is unfeasible. Polling a sample and drawing conclusions on the whole of America is statistically sound as long as the sample is unbiased.*

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

The point of a sampling poll is to derive a useful idea of a population based upon a sample. Polling the entire nation is unfeasible. Polling a sample and drawing conclusions on the whole of America is statistically sound as long as the sample is unbiased.*

I didnt mean poll everyone in the nation... not everyone in the United States is eligable to cast a vote. Futher more not everyone who is eligable to vote comes out to vote for president. Yes it has the largest voter turn out but did you by chance take a gander at the % of how many actually made the effort to vote? Lets see I think it was 61%. Thats a little over half of eligable voters. If you assumed the rest of the 39% were to vote accordingly would you just agree with it?

assuming the rest of the population will vote accordingly is not sound.

[x42bn6]

I'm not sure if you have to vote to have an opinion on the current President, by the way.

The poll was probably to find what was most likely the approval rating of President Bush from the whole of America. They probably took several Republican and Democrat states and all of the ones that were closely split, and polled a couple of thousand from each chosen state.*