unnecessary wars promoted by those contractors
====================

ive had this discussion on her before.

i refuse to beleive that the government's decision whether or not to go to war, is determined by the extent to which it is lobbied by arms dealers.

i just refuse to believe that.

Yes (until you can explain why not ) .

i just refuse to believe that.
--------------------
How else do you explain the change of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq?

why would arms supliers care whether the government was buying its weapons to shoot afghans or to shoot iraqis ?

Answering a question with a question

anyway, whilst im interested to discuss that point (although im going to bed in a mo), i still stand by my original point that

republicans = free market,
democrats = government redistribution.
reblublicans = high earners
democrats = low earners/unemployed

low earners + unemployed people > high earners

Answering a question with a question
===================

it seemed like the most logical response.

Feck the change of direction, why either war at all if not to appease the men from Halliburton et al. To impose their broken "democracy" on people thousands of miles away?

Or simply in the hope of killing a terrorist. Assassinate him already

I mean, destroy a country then realise that you could have just sent special ops after him in the first place..

I get what you're saying brayns but with that in mind surely the injustice would have been the republicans winning the election.

oh god, was that conversation with you ?

Yes (until you can explain why not
------------------------------
The US is a federal system comprising of individual states. The states are allocated electoral votes according to their populous. So to be elected you have to win individual states. If you get the most votes in the state you win that state, and a number of electoral votes are allotted to you. If you get 270 you are elected.

The popular vote is just adding up all the individual votes you got within the states and it doesn't matter if you get more than you opponent overall. However it is better to win the popular vote as well case it gives you a stronger mandate.

Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college.

I mean, destroy a country then realise that you could have just sent special ops after him in the first place
================

theyve destroyed syria without sending a single soldier in.

afghanistan was never about 1 terrorist, and let's be honest, there's fak all there to destroy anyway.

What conversation?

If you were saying war is good then probably, yes.

Am I correct that the :
-------------------------
No.

=============

If you were saying war is good then probably, yes.
================

no, i would not have been saying that.

i had a conversation which for a few posts touched upon a suggestion that america's foreign policy is determined by lobbyists from the weapons industry. i did not accept the proposition.

Am I correct that the :
==============

i cant actually find any post in which someone said that though

That wasn't me.

I can see what they were saying though. Their history is littered with pointless wars, seems a more likely explanation than them all being idiots

why would arms supliers care whether the government was buying its weapons to shoot afghans or to shoot iraqis ?
---------------------------------
There is no possibility of recovering the costs from Afghanistan. Whereas as Iraq has oil. The source of oil was limited by sanctions imposed in gulf I. After Gulf II, those sanctions were lifted which was meant to help the war pay for itself.

There is no other way to explain the bellicose foreign policy of the repubs since Reagan.

That wasn't me
----------------------

There is no possibility of recovering the costs from Afghanistan. Whereas as Iraq has oil. The source of oil was limited by sanctions imposed in gulf I. After Gulf II, those sanctions were lifted which was meant to help the war pay for itself.
=======================

so your suggestion is that arms manufacutrers were concerned that america could only afford to use catipults in afghanistan, so convinced the government to have a war in iraw instead on the grounds that it could be profitable ?

i dont subscribe to that view.

besides which, my recollection is that the war shifted from iraw to afghanistan, not the other way round.

http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019626817_how-people-voted-for-obama-romney.html

Yes.

so your suggestion is that arms manufacutrers were concerned that america could only afford to use catipults in afghanistan, so convinced the government to have a war in iraw instead on the grounds that it could be profitable ?
------------------------
No I am not saying that. I am saying it was an easy sell by the defense industry to sell the concept to the neo-cons. Thats what lobbying does. The repubs used what had happened in 9/11 to fix the problem that was created by Bush I in not removing Saddam from power. The source of 9/11 was Afghanistan which was attacked by the US immediately. Bush shifted his focus from Afghan to Iraq against the wishes of Powell allowing OBL to escape to Pak.

besides which, my recollection is that the war shifted from iraw to afghanistan, not the other way round.
---------------------------


Please read some history books.

.

oh well, i remembered it wrong. who gives a fak

You are actually wrong in your assessment. The great majority of republicans are poor people with no education who stick to guns and the bible and believe the tea party speaks for them. The same tea party members who are on medicare and food stamps.

Democrats are open minded, ready to accept new ideas, do not see going to college as evil and a lot of them are very successful who believe that for their country to be great, they need to stop corporations running everything for a profit including providing basic health care.

The republican party that exists today is a disgrace to a once great movement

The voter survey I posted links to, seems to tell the tale.

The Republicans only have stong resonance in males aged 40+ , or denizens of suburban/lesser populated locales.

Not the demographic that represents the USA of today methinks. Nor the one that will get them re-elected.