From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Perot
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:57:18 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <Bu35uK.26o@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
> In article <jayson.03ac@tbag.tscs.com> jayson@tbag.tscs.com (Jayson Phillips) writes:
> >Not  to  mention  the Patriot Missile which, during the Gulf War, failed to
> >hit a single scud, contrary to to popular myth and lies spouted by Bush and
> >his  generals  at  the  time.  The army has since stated that "...  we have
> >high  confidence in 10% of the targets the Patriots were fired at..." which
> >means they don't know for sure if they actually hit any targets.
>
> Oh... now the liberals are saying that the Patriot didn't hit a
> SINGLE scud!  The number keeps getting lower and lower!  Next, it
> will be negative!
>
> What nonsense!  (unsustantiated nonsense)
>

I saw scuds shot down by patriots on TV.  That's enough substantiation for me.
Several times.

> >The  procuement  system is the reason we have such an inflated military and
> >such  an  inflated  military  industrial  complex.
>
> Sorry.  The military complex is NOT inflated.  It is less than 30% of the
> federal budget.  Now SOCIAL programs make up just about the remaining
> 70%.  THERE's the inflated financial abortion of modern times (since
> FDR).
>

Time to explode some myths.  In 1989, the defense budget was $350 Billion.
The federal budget was $1.15 Trillion.  The defense budget in 1991 is below
$270 Billion.  That's more than a 25% CUT.  A CUT.  A CUT.  A SIGNIFICANT CUT.
Social programs like health, education, and welfare during Reagan's last 4 years
went UP by 18-25 %.  INCREASE.  INCREASE.  INCREASE.  And entitlements are at the
$600 Billion level.  A far cry from 70% of the budget.  INTEREST on the debt is
15% of the budget by itself.  41% of the budget goes to direct payments to individuals.
12% of the budget goes for grants to states and localities.  7% goes to federal operations.
6% goes to Deposit insurance.  20% goes for defense.  Those figures (percentages)
are for FY1992.  Revenues of 1.165Billion and outlays of 1,445.9 Billion.  What's
inflated is the size of the budget - consider that LBJ's last budget in 1968 was
$200 Billion and that funded ALL of the Great Society programs AND the VietNam War.
Guns and butter.

And consider this:  Our GNP is $5.5 Trillion.  Compare that with the $350 Billion
we spent at our HIGHEST amount ever.  Not even 10% of the economy is or was
military complex.  Even if it was 10%, so WHAT?


> >Of course we need some
> >military for our country's defense.  However, Bush and his rich friends use
> >this  excsessive military power for personal agin and control of the world.
>
> Not.  Where do you get this garbage?
>

Agreed.  Pure and utter bullshit.

> >That's  the  name  of  the game.  And all those who make the money from the
> >procurement system support it.  Money talks, albeit too loud somtimes.
>
> Money ALWAYS talks.  We live in a capitalistic society.  Seems to work
> the best (unless you call the death of socialism "working").
>

Gee, I remember several big procurement-type companies getting levied huge fines
for illicit practices during Reagan's terms.

> >Actully,  shit-for-brains,  the  Soviet  people  took back their country on
> >their  own  without US gov help.
>

The old "shit-for-brains" argument.  Quite persuasive debate technique.
Widely used by democrats and liberals.

> >Something we should do in this country if
> >only  enough of us had the balls to get together and do it.
>
> Best done by throwing out that piece-of-shit, Congress.
> Oh yeah, I forgot to call you shit-for-brains, but then again
> I don't have to name-call because my arguments aren't valueless
> like yours.
>

"Clean the house."

>
> >It's high time
> >the  "top  5%"  start  paying  their share.
>
> The top 5% pay MORE than their share.  They create business, jobs,
> and provide the ONLY path to personal security.
>

The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes.  Time to pay 5% of the taxes.  That's
their fair share.  Look at this perspective:  DOUBLE EVERYONE'S taxes
and you don't even cover the defecit.  Take away ALL of the rich's money
and assets and you don't cover the defecit.  Note: defecit is just how
much the debt grows THIS year alone.  To quote Perot, "You can take the
biggest bank in Japan and sell it to the Arabs and you wouldn't get
enough money to pay the defecit."  The rich can't carry the whole load.

> It's the idiotic social programs of this country, always giving everything
> away to those which DON'T contribute that aren't doing anything
> worthwhile.
>

The problem isn't spending money.  It is spending money foolishly.  And
spending more than we take in.

> It's the fool congressman who are only concerned with being
> re-elected (fat chance, now I would say) that are not only NOT doing
> their jobs, but performing great harm.
>

And Bill Clinton promising EVERYTHING under the sun to every special
interest group he speaks to.

> Bash the rich.  bash the military.  Keep going...
>

The AVERAGE charitable contributions claimed by >$1Million income people
on IRS tax returns is $143K.  <--- bash this

>
> >It's high time that people are
> >allowed  to  get back to work and allowed to make a decent living, not this
> >$4.50 - $5.00/hr  slave  wage  crap that makes the rich richer and the poor
> >poorer.
>

Collecting interest instead of paying interest makes the rich richer
and the poor poorer.

>
> Liberals need to get off the backs of business.  Then the jobs will
> appear.  It's so simple.  All the rules & regulations break the
> backs of those who SHOULD be producing jobs, but can't afford to
> expand.  California is the best current case in point.  The businesses
> are moving away in droves because of all the governmental regulation.
>

Businesses SHOULD move away.  It is up to the states to ATTRACT businesses.
Competition is a GOOD thing.

> So don't bitch there are no jobs.  It's our own fault.
>

I ran a corporation for 4 years.  I had to give it up, even though
the corporation grew at 300% per year.  The cost of running the
thing was just too high.  Oh yeah, I had 10 employees, too.  Now they
are NOT employed by me.  I wish it were otherwise, in general.

> >You're  50  years  behind  the  times.   The  US  gov  has continuosly been
> >retooling  the  military  since WWII.
>
> And it's a good thing too.
>

That's what keeps foreign troops off our soil.  I bet Mr. Radigan is the first
to surrender when enemy troops invade his town...  Oops, an assault rifle against
an attack helicopter?  HAHAHAHA.

> >The pace was stepped up a bit during
> >Reagan/Bush  administrations.  Heck, you never know when you might  need to
> >go  stomp on some small country for the sake of personal (and/or corporate)
> >gain.
>

Or so "poor" people can afford to put gas in their cars, pay for electricity
to run their air conditioners and TV sets...

> Or for reasons of national security.  Corporate America is why this country
> is as prosperous as it is.  Now liberals like you have screwed that up,
> by your constant bashing and funneling money to non-productive causes.
>

Yeah.  Dave Packard has no business giving $1Billion to Stanford University.
He should give that money to the government so it can disappear.  It might
pay for some postage or something...

> It was the USSR that militarily took over small countries.  We don't do that.
> We only become involved when it's an issue of national security, and
> we always give the country back.  You're really confused with these
> issues.
>

Sorry, Mike.  You need to study our own recent history more closely.
What we did in South America in the Truman, JFK, and LBJ years makes
Granada look pretty puny.  All in the name of the American Fruit Companies.


> >Pu-lease  give  me a break.  The US and it's highly paid (many billions $$)
> >mob of coalition countries out numbered Sadam's army 10 to 1 and out gunned
> >his  army  &  air force 100 to 1.  And "terrorism" is merely a propagandist
> >term for warfare waged by a small country without a powerful military.
>
> Spoken like a true terrorist.  Remember how we gave Saddam warning
> upon warning, even announced to the day when the US forces would attack?
>

No matter how you slice it, Iraq had the 4th largest army in the WORLD.


> Remember how terrorist attack CIVILIAN establishments and constantly
> kill innocent people...no emphasis on military targets at all?
> Don't glorify terrorism... it doesn't become an American to do so.
> Of course, you may not be an American.
>

Sizzle.  I remember a terrorist incident where we actually forced
terrorists to land and be arrested after their attack.  That was
during Reagan's term, though.  During Carter's term, we couldn't
even get helicopters off the ground without losing them all and
several men during a rescue attempt of the iranian hostages.

> >
> >>  Last I heard Saddam was still boppin' around, that tells me the job wasn't
> >>finished.  Sure, we gave Kuwait back to the rightful owners, but we haven't
> >>removed the threat for the future.
> >
> >Wether  the job was finished or not depends on what the job was supposed to
> >be.   Sadam could have been bombed into submission in 3 days.  Instead, the
> >entire country (only 17 million, oops 16 mil now) was bombed for 7 weeks by
> >the largest airforce on the planet.  Obviously the purpose of this military
> >action  was  to  destroy  Iraq  even tho "We have no quarrel with the Iraqi
> >people."
>
> Bullcrap.  If the purpose was to destroy Iraq, why is Suddam still
> in power?  Your statements are a series of contradictions.
> "...most pwerful airforce on the planet..." yet he's still in
> power?
>

This is typical liberal/democrat propoganda.  When the war broke out, the same
people who were saying "the sanctions will work, give them more time" are now
complaining that we didn't violate every law in the world and take unilateral
action to assasinate the leader of another nation.  VERY ILLEGAL.

> And what are your military qualifications for coming up with that
> "3 days" estimate?  This is pur poppycock...completely unsubstantiated
> and only the typical America-bashing that the ultra-left loves to do.
>

Bush promised that the Gulf War would NOT be another VietNam.  We dropped
more bombs on the Iraqis than in ALL of VietNam.  More than all the bombs
in World War II.  Boy, some people have short memories (or were born too
late to remember) VietNam.  Well, maybe we can all remember Afganistan, where
the LARGEST army in the world couldn't win in 8 YEARS.  Afganistan has a population
of 15Million, too.

> The purpose of Desert Storm was to get Iraq out of Kuwait.  It was
> a complete success.  If Suddam had left earlier, less people would
> have been killed.
>

100% correct.  I dare ANYONE to show me the text of ANY UN resolution that
said that the coalition was supposed to invade Iraqi territory and go after
Bahgdad.  The liberals have been very good at rewriting history, I suppose
they will rewrite these facts, too.

> >Rightful  owners?   The  Kuwait territory used to be part of Iraq
> >until the British "drew a line in the sand." It's not at all obvious that a
> >single  royal  family  is  the  rightful  owner of Kuwait.
>
> It seems to have been clear to Iraq, who had financial dealings
> with Kuwait for many years.
>

The debts that Iraq ran up by borrowing money from Kuwait to pay for
the war with Iran is the real reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait.  Just
like a Tramiel trick - take over the country and cancel the debt in
one clean swoop.  Tramiel did this with a disk drive company - he
bought a company that was suing him after driving the stock price
down by not paying for drives ordered...

> >Incidently, the
> >Kuwaits actaully made the first agressive action by putting settlements and
> >drilling  for  oil  in  the  buffer  zone  between  the two countires.  Not
> >military agression, but agression none the less.
>
> Even if this were true (and I never heard of it), it was not
> miltary agression, and there are many ways to settle such disputes.
> Saddam never approached the UN with any complaint of this nature.
>

I never heard this, either.

> As I remember it, Iraq was in terrible financial difficulty, and simply
> wanted to aquire Kuwait's riches by force.  It seemed like easy
> pickings, but it ended up not so easy, eh?
>

They wanted to cancel the debt to kuwait.  The first thing they did after
kidnapping, raping, and murdering civilians was to raid the Kuwait treasury.

> >
> >>  And,  if  there is a next time, there just might be a few ex-Soviet nukes
> >>that  surprizingly  come  into  play courtesy of that Russian collapse that
> >>you're so proud of...
> >>
> >>  -jack-
> >
> >The  Soviet  collapse  was  a  financial  one.  The US is also headed for a
> >financial collapse.  However, those with money are likely not to notice it.
> >And yes, there are nukes out there.  (nukes, nukes, who's got the nukes?)
> >
>
> Exactly why we have to keep a strong military, always.

We never spent more than 14% of our GNP on defense.  Russia was spending 60% +
on their defense industry.  Wanna hear some striking similarities between
Reagan and JFK?  Here goes:

Each came from the most liberal states in the Union (Cal. and Mass.)
Both had VPs from Texas.  Both VPs became president.
Both went to the Berlin Wall and made the speech "Tear down the wall...".
Both went to congress to demand 14% of GNP for defense spending.
Both were shot in office.
Both were excellent at using TV.
Both were president while there was a charismatic Soviet Leader.
Both made a faux-pas with the CIA (bay of pigs, iran-contra).
Both were strongly anti-communist.

Now for the differences:

JFK was killed.
The wall fell shortly after Reagan made his speech.
Reagan did not start a major war (clue: vietnam)
Reagan did not bring us to the brink of nuclear holocaust (Cuban Missle Crisis).
Reagan was not a liberal or a democrat.
Reagan did not send our troops against our own people on our own soil.

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc