Tweet
You might want to, I dunno, maybe, read a bit more closely. I understand if English isn't your first language but that doesn't obligate me to explain every detail of a conversation I'm not having with you atm.
-
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio -
Ufff, Calm down mate.
Not my fault if you dont know what are you speaking about. 
Ich bin der Zorn Gottes. Wer sonst ist mit mir?Comment
-
Well, if you are a habitual "it's standard procedure" doer, it's maybe a bad idea to blame others for doing the sameOriginally posted by DinoDoc
Since when is "He did it too!" a valid defense?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Why would the US defence establishment object to Galileo on the grounds of it being waste of money. The fact that it's wasting money could be advice, observation or opinion from the establishment, but an objection? Are the US directly footing the bill aswell?Originally posted by DanS
That's why the US defense establishment has dropped its objections to Galileo, other than the objection that it is a waste of money.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
When the US tries to encourage EU members to more generously fund various defense projects (power projection capabilities for instance) naturally the negative responses are typically tied to budgetary objections.Originally posted by Dauphin
Why would the US defence establishment object to Galileo on the grounds of it being waste of money. The fact that it's wasting money could be advice, observation or opinion from the establishment, but an objection? Are the US directly footing the bill aswell?
So it should come as no surprise when the US objects to other spending that seems to be clearly competing for those defense euros.Last edited by Geronimo; May 14, 2007, 19:16.Comment
-
And for the same reason you guys waste all your energy arguing against it on an internet board?Comment
-
Still laughing in Kuci & Co's faces...
Europe will have its own system thereby breaking the US's monopoly. Always a good thing to do given the fact that lately you tend to choose monkeys in very important positions.
So now piss off and go waste some more money in the ME (where you actually kill people and don't solve any problems)."Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."Comment
-
When the US wants the EU to spend more, it's the EU that pays, so of course it can object when it's its money being spent. The US can't complain because it's not their money being used. Further to that- why should the US defence establishment presume the right to sell arms to Europe? The way you present the argument is one of a vendor complaining that a customer has decided to spend his money on something else than his merchandise. What right is there to an objection if they don't want to buy from you?Originally posted by Geronimo
When the tries to encourage EU members to more generously fund various defense projects (power projection capabilities for instance) naturally the negative responses are typically tied to budgetary objections.
So it should come as no surprised when the US objects to other spending that seems to be clearly competing for those defense euros.
If you want to argue unfair subsidy, then that is something else. If you want to argue that it's protectionism, you can. Complaining that it's a waste of money has no logic to it in the way you present the argument.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
It makes good sense to me. When the EU (ex-UK and France) doesn't adequately fund its defense, then it's the US that is burdened, as lead in the alliance. It's a beggar thy neighbor approach. When the EU's not adequately funding its defense, the least it can do is maximize the utility of what it does spend. In that sense, Galileo falls woefully short.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
How much money does the US spend these days to "defend" Europe? And from what danger?
The reason we want your guys here is they spend their money in our bars and in Polish whores.Comment
-
It's not money they spend in the whores...Comment
-
Many tens of billions of dollars per annum, in the form of both strategic assets and power projection capabilities. If Afghanistan doesn't strike you as the perfect example, then Kosovo might.
Also, the US still guarantees the peace in Europe. Hopefully, the US can relinquish this role.Last edited by DanS; May 13, 2007, 14:23.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
So when you say defence, you actually mean offence.Comment
-
The US guaranteed peace in Europe until 1991, then projected power in 1995 and 1999. If they hadn't nothing would have happened.
And Afghanistan is in Europe now?
Comment
-
Sandman: Let's see you describe and defend this distinction.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
Comment