h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Is it about the justification of military expenditure and making government contractors rich?"

Again, I doubt it. This is usually brought up when a country goes to war because it can be.""

"I've brought this up twice in a few days also. Are you just hoping to dismiss it Zagreb and hope it's going to go away? Product testing is something that people don't give enough credit to and perhaps republican funders want some return back."

*sigh*

I'm convinced the potential war with Iraq is not about testing US Weapons. Any weapons they wanted to test, they had the chance in Afghanistan. The US arms industry makes more money from selling equipment to countries unlikely ever to go to war than from fighting wars (and who are they going to sell to? Iraq?). Sorry, but as a "hidden agenda" for going to war, this isn't remotely convincing.

Why not? The extra billions spent are not being spent abroad. American manufacturers are making the profit. Who's on the funding list for the republicans?

Why are you so convinced?

Zagreb: "I sincerely hope that was tongue-in-cheek "

If I need to specify the tone of my writing style, then I should rethink the tone, style or both.

But my point remains: If you want to use words as insults, use the word "human" as we are the only animal I know of capable of the premeditated crimes I mentioned. Calling someone a "pig" deminishes the insult.

ApparÏtÏon: "Do you have more that two examples? I wonder is anyone has a tally of the number of conflicts America has been in."

Here's a pretty good link:
http://www.historyguy.com/american_military_history.html

And for more info:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

ApparÏtÏon: "Why not? The extra billions spent are not being spent abroad. American manufacturers are making the profit. Who's on the funding list for the republicans?

Why are you so convinced?"

It is true that most of the money spent on defense by the US is spent in the US, as there are many laws and regulations regarding the use of foreign technology in US military applications. There are however avenues of spending the money in foreign countries (motivated by cheaper labour costs) that see some of the money being spent outside the US. I don't wish to bore you with the details (apart from being boring, it is not really part of the topic here), but it involves the numerous alliances and partnerships that the US has with regard to defense and building weapons not only for itsef by for it's allies. The joint strike fighter is a classic example.

Now back to the topic....

Zagreb: "I'm convinced the potential war with Iraq is not about testing US Weapons. Any weapons they wanted to test, they had the chance in Afghanistan. The US arms industry makes more money from selling equipment to countries unlikely ever to go to war than from fighting wars (and who are they going to sell to? Iraq?). Sorry, but as a "hidden agenda" for going to war, this isn't remotely convincing."

I don't see the war with Iraq as an agenda for testing weapons either. But there is an agenda that is not at all hidden. I cannot believe that with Bush Snr, Bush Jnr, Dick Caney, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas White (Secretary of the army) ALL having oil connections, and all going after one of the most oil rich rountries in the world (Iraq), IS A COINCIDANCE.

Look at what happenned in Afghanistan: bad guys not caught, former oil consultant instated as "president", US oil companies building pipeline from Caspian sea to Asia.

OK so you don't think it's a motive. But when you say that you use the word testing, where as I said testing *and/or* profit and republican funding.

So why so convinced it's not?

Apparition: "OK so you don't think it's a motive. But when you say that you use the word testing, where as I said testing *and/or* profit and republican funding.

So why so convinced it's not?"

Not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting the military funnels funds back to the republican party?

Military contractors. I've heard things said here and there, but nothing referenced. I've already read that the NRA is a supporter of the republican party.

With the not insubstantial increase in military spending. I'm suggestion that it's not insubstantial as a motive either.

What I have wondered is have not seen this mentioned) if the US and UK (or anyone) bomb Iraq because they have WMD--- are we not risking setting off those Weapons? Does any one hear talk about in the bombing Iraq,we could possibly send all of Iraq's (chemical, biological and radiation)debris into the atmosphere? Where is the safety/solution in that choice?

Then you'd have to assume they care about Arabs.

What's likely is that WMD are just an excuse. An excuse there's not really any evidence for.

I think starting war with Iraq isn't a very good idea at all. First of all, there are other alternatives than war and war is a strain on a country economy and supplies. Second of all it's showing that America is a bully since Iraq hasn't really attacked the US or declared war on the US. Third during the Reagan/Sr. Bush administration, the US actually secretley sent war supplies to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. Fourth it's an excuse to get re-elected and George W. Bush (I think) wants to finish what his dad started.

-Slartibartfast

Oh. One more thing. Right now America's economy is more important right now than a war. In my opinion.

Slarti and everyone else. Here's a link you'll find interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1800954.stm

"President George W. Bush has proposed a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress that would pour billions of dollars into the armed forces but cut government spending to keep the deficit down."

Contractors will be happy.

Abu Bakar Ba'asyer head Cleric of Jemaah Islamiah has been rumered to have contacts within Iraki intelligence agents.

Whoa!!! That's real wishful thinking. It doesn't even come close to proving any link between AlQueda and Iraq. (Something Bush has been trying to do for some time. He must be very frustrated. ha ha ha.)

>Whoa!!! That's real wishful thinking. It doesn't even come close to proving any link between AlQueda and Iraq. (Something Bush has been trying to do for some time. He must be very frustrated. ha ha ha.)<

I am sure the 180 dead and 300 injured {mostly european and aussie's} in bali are laughing.

And there's *absolutely* no proved link between the Bali bombing and *any* group yet.

Do you really think that a man who has been smart enough to stay as a military dictator for as many year as saddam has is stupid enough to risk the tide turning against him by being involved in this atrocity?

Who was saying Saddam was involved in the Bali bombing? That's highly unlikely, although I'm pretty certain Islamic militants were involved.