If Palin was a man...

[ar81]

The problem with this argument is that if 7 billion wasn't spent on defense every year that deaths from terrorism and violence wouldn't go up. Lawlessness results in more deaths and hardship not caused by direct violence. C.F. Somalia in the 90s. The drought wasn't the main cause for famine.

Are there less terrorists now than in 2001? Is the world safer now than in 2001?

 

[Eagle]

Are there less terrorists now than in 2001? Is the world safer now than in 2001?

Yes.

 

[ar81]

Yes.

Are you sure?
On BBC an exCIA said that Iran is keeping peace in Iraq as they are calming down Shii. Analysts coincide about the fact that war on Iraqgave Iranians more influence in the middle east.
And Afghanistan is half lost.
And according to a US general it may take decades of war...

 

[Urwumpe]

Are there less terrorists now than in 2001? Is the world safer now than in 2001?

Ask me again, when we have caught all native German terrorists, who are currently at unknown locations.

From my view, there is currently more terrorism in the world, but less success. The large terrorist groups no longer exist and the actions became smaller and less complex organized. Something like 9/11 is unlikely for the future, but you never know. Maybe we will one day forget to be vigilant.

We have failed to deliver the important answer to terrorism yet. The question is not "Is the world safer now?", but "Is terrorism successful?"

 

[ar81]

If the world is not safer it is just like the financial crisis... wait until it is a world crisis, an emergency to solve it.

That is the most expensive way to solve a problem. Considering the past I see some taste of Americans to live emergencies. Is that a way to bring intense emotion to routine and boredom? Proactive and cheap solutions are not as thrilling as reactive and expensive responses. LImited budget adds more emotions to the game.

So I wonder if americans need to be poor, starved and suffering epidemic diseases (a country in a state of emergency) so education, health and infrastructure get the required attention, sacrificing the military.

 

[Urwumpe]

And according to a US general it may take decades of war...

And a British general said that the war in Afghanistan is lost. Only days before the German parliament decided to increase their efforts in Afghanistan, not by ignorance of his statement, but because.

I tell you: It will take only months of war in Iraq. And maybe years in Afghanistan, if we don't ensure ourself, what we want in Afghanistan. We can't expect Kleptocrates to be in our best interests.

Iran has less power in Iraq, as it claims itself. The Iraqi Shia had been ignored by Iran for decades and they remember it well. They also remember how the western world left them to their own fate in 1991. The best we can hope for is the Iraq Shia to become an independent factor in Iraq.

 

[Eagle]

Are you sure?
On BBC an exCIA said that Iran is keeping peace in Iraq as they are calming down Shii. Analysts coincide about the fact that war on Iraqgave Iranians more influence in the middle east.
And Afghanistan is half lost.
And according to a US general it may take decades of war...

Iran is one of the largest and most populous countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn't in the best position to check Iran's power. But Iraq's Government is beginning to assert itself within its own borders, politically and slowly taking control of security with its military and police force. Slow progress, but progress.

Cry defeat in Afghanistan if you want. But the Afghans haven't given up. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=28765 I also suggest you notice that Pakistan is embarrassed as hell about US raids in Waziristan, so much that its likely they're to the point of policing the region themselves.
And don't bother me about the source of the article, its by the AP and you can find it a billion other places with a google search.

 

[ar81]

And what do you think about the industry of fear?
Weapon manufacturers and dealers might like to fund terror groups to convince citizens about how unsafe world is, to fight wars so taxpayer money goes to their pockets. Just like Hitler did with germans when he convinced people about fictional threats.

 

[Urwumpe]

So I wonder if americans need to be poor, starved and suffering epidemic diseases (a country in a state of emergency) so education, health and infrastructure get the required attention, sacrificing the military.

Oh that is very simple. Just make them brain dead.

I don't know, where you have your economic knowledge from, but I doubt from dealing with money everyday...

 

[Eagle]

And what do you think about the industry of fear?
Weapon manufacturers and dealers might like to fund terror groups to convince citizens about how unsafe world is, to fight wars so taxpayer money goes to their pockets. Just like Hitler did with germans when he convinced people about fictional threats.

Godwin's law unfortunately doesn't apply to this forum. :dry: No interest in reality. I'll be nice and not call the above quote a steaming load.

I'll sustain that defense contractors want to show that their products are useful, but they certainly don't sow fear like you say: (First it isn't economic)
Law of the commons. Giant terrorist conspiracies don't really benefit a defense contractor very much, and they won't make back their advertising costs. What they do advertise is how useful their product is in certain situations. Go watch some videos on their websites. There's a pretty good demo video for the Stryker.

 

[Urwumpe]

And what do you think about the industry of fear?
Weapon manufacturers and dealers might like to fund terror groups to convince citizens about how unsafe world is, to fight wars so taxpayer money goes to their pockets.

Car manufacturers will also tell you that you need a new car every 6 months. And a bigger and a better one. If you don't know, what you need yourself, people will tell you.

Who is to blame, if you get poor by buying their stuff? They?

And can you name one example of weapon manufacturers funding terror groups for selling their products? You insert fiction.

What is a common way to make money as weapon manufacturer is to deliver weapons to both sides. Secretly. Because nobody wants trades with somebody who trades with the enemy. But the last Stinger in the Mudjaheddin arsenal was long fired... And terrorists don't buy tomahawk missiles.

Just like Hitler did with germans when he convinced people about fictional threats.

There goes the thread. Hitler was mentioned again and again wrong. He did not even need fictional threats for rearming Germany. He did not even tell people to hate jews. They thought so before. All he did was turn this small hatred in each person into a large wave and ride on it's top. Until the wave collapsed.

 

[ar81]

What is a common way to make money as weapon manufacturer is to deliver weapons to both sides. Secretly. Because nobody wants trades with somebody who trades with the enemy. But the last Stinger in the Mudjaheddin arsenal was long fired... And terrorists don't buy tomahawk missiles.

Weapon manufacturers can pay a few guys to send some suicide idiots, so the richest side buys all the merchandise.

I don't know, where you have your economic knowledge from, but I doubt from dealing with money everyday...

Ad hominem falacy...

 

[Urwumpe]

Weapon manufacturers can pay a few guys to send some suicide idiots, so the richest side buys all the merchandise.

So, you think you can buy them? Do you have evidence that suicide bombers can be bought? You can support them, but you can't buy them. Where they hit and when they stop is always outside your control - and also outside the control of the strategists of terror. But that is a minor problem for them.

Ad hominem falacy...

No, it is your own fallacy to call that observation an "argument ad hominem".

You often enough use your own invented biography to begin "argument by authority" ("I found an error in the current economic model and was acknowledged for it"), but you fail to see even very simple economic processes inside the USA with a rational mind.

When you use argument by authority, and people demote this authority, it is not "ad hominem". It is called "return to reality." Let's answer your constant and fact-free USA-Bashing with some of your own medicine.

What can the USA improve with more money for education? The USA have already one of the highest education spending. And that only for state funded schools, the economy also supports private schools. But the USA are still running pretty bad in international comparison studies? How does that fit into your world? Would more money per student improve the education? If that theory is true, the USA should be having the best and brightest people on this planet.

The USA could need more funding for infrastructure, but that infrastructure is not maintained by the state. The USA are no communist country. Compared to other countries (especially your own, Costa Rica) the USA have a very high spending for infrastructure per km².

Is the military spending of the USA high? Sure it is. But compared to other countries and how large the military funding as fraction of the national budget, the USA are actually pretty modest. The USA are a large country and can spend of lot of money. But they don't pay 66% of the national budget for the military, like many african or asian countries.

I know that Costa Rica has no military... but who will Costa Rica call, when for example Venezuela invades it?

Also, do you know how many state monopolies Costa Rica has? You don't even have free communication. You have to rely on a government agency to talk to somebody else. No free commercial banks, no free insurance companies, you don't even have a electricity market.

And so is the economic situation in Costa Rica. You think the USA have it bad now? Costa Rica has a 5% economic growth on the paper, which is eaten by the runaway inflation in your country. Your money is running out, and as far as I can tell about it, mostly by the fact that your country has no working market in any industry. Most money gets drained inside ineffective government agencies.

The 5% economic growth come from foreign companies, who sell their products outside Costa Rica. 20% of the 50 billion GDP of Costa Rica is produced by only one Intel factory. Which does not produce for Costa Rica. It just takes advantage of the large offerings, the Costa Rican government makes for foreign companies, the low salaries, which come the fact the government well-fare system pays the rest of the Bill.

So, how do you estimate your own countries situation compared to the USA? As far as I can tell from your own posts, it does exactly implement what you suggest. No military funding, lot's of government agencies replacing markets and even full government control of the finance sector.

What will happen to your country, when the US citizens become too poor to afford travel to Costa Rica and bring money into the country as tourists (which is, as far as I know, the only profitable sector of your economy. Your agricultural sector is only a small contribution). The money drain of your country would even increase, how can you stop it?

What will happen to the stability of your country, when money really runs out? How many years do you think, is your country away from hyperinflation?

Isn't it cool to see your medicine being tested in reality? Now, tell me, how is your estimate - does it fail because the medicine is actually a toxine or will you pretent, that the medicine is all right, but it is just the world economic model, which is the reason why Costa Rica spents more money as it owns?

 

[ar81]

Let's answer your constant and fact-free USA-Bashing with some of your own medicine.

I do not think of it as bashing. When you are not able to question, you can't improve either your ideas or the ways of things. In my country we have true freedom. We can criticize our country just like you did. And that is a sign of freedom. Instead, as you criticize US, lack of freedom is hidden under the term as "bashing". It means no insult, it is just that in this country we use to consider criticism as the only way to gain awareness, and that is the start for improvement.

A true enemy would enjoy crisis in silence, and would encourage more spending, like North Korea and Iran. They seem to try to push US to spend more money in antinuclear efforts that in the end will drain US taxpayers money.

What can the USA improve with more money for education? The USA have already one of the highest education spending. And that only for state funded schools, the economy also supports private schools. But the USA are still running pretty bad in international comparison studies? How does that fit into your world? Would more money per student improve the education? If that theory is true, the USA should be having the best and brightest people on this planet.

Then there must be some source of inefficiency somewhere.

The USA could need more funding for infrastructure, but that infrastructure is not maintained by the state. The USA are no communist country. Compared to other countries (especially your own, Costa Rica) the USA have a very high spending for infrastructure per km².

Then how do you explain falling of bridges and risk of floods in Sacramento?

I know that Costa Rica has no military... but who will Costa Rica call, when for example Venezuela invades it?

Costa Rica was at risk of invasion twice. One was in 1856 when William Walker from US tried to invade Costa Rica. UK government support was key not to allow Central America to fall in the hands of Walker. An American vessel sank a Costa Rican vessel in the Pacific, killing Costa Rican troops.

The second was in late 1970s, when Somoza (supported by US) was about to invade. But Venezuela sent lots of fighter planes that filled Costa Rican airstrips and airports during Carazo administration, so if Somoza invaded, Nicaragua would see its infrastructure being blown by modern Venezuelan jet fighters.

Ironically nowadays you see that the only kill of Air Marshalls was a Costa Rican, last named Alpizar.

Commercially US is a partner. But politically Costa Rica decided to be neutral and there are reasons for that.

And so is the economic situation in Costa Rica. You think the USA have it bad now? Costa Rica has a 5% economic growth on the paper, which is eaten by the runaway inflation in your country. Your money is running out, and as far as I can tell about it, mostly by the fact that your country has no working market in any industry. Most money gets drained inside ineffective government agencies.

Yes. Ineffectiveness is one of the things I criticize too. It comes from lazy people who get into political parties. They talk a lot, but when it is time to clean a small river that is less than 150 km long they can't even do it, while germans cleaned Rin river and british cleaned Thames river.

They get into positions of power and appoint friends in govt positions, and that causes incompetent performance. We have had about 20 years of that.

I have started activist work to audit parties. Nowadays journalists are hunters. And I am with them.

We do not even have treatment for black waters, so if you go to the Pacific beach you could be swimming in "biodiversity". Our rates of garbage per capita are very high, and I recall a lady from an embassy who mentioned some research about ozone layer over Costa Rica becoming weaker.

The 5% economic growth come from foreign companies, who sell their products outside Costa Rica. 20% of the 50 billion GDP of Costa Rica is produced by only one Intel factory. Which does not produce for Costa Rica. It just takes advantage of the large offerings, the Costa Rican government makes for foreign companies, the low salaries, which come the fact the government well-fare system pays the rest of the Bill.

Yes. Again the ineffective institutions shut down DINADECO which was a good thing, for it was an incubator of companies, a root development office that became a useless bureaucratic office.

So, how do you estimate your own countries situation compared to the USA? As far as I can tell from your own posts, it does exactly implement what you suggest. No military funding, lot's of government agencies replacing markets and even full government control of the finance sector.

Yes. People here do not trust companies that replace government, for latest scandals involved Instrumentarium and Alcatel, 2 big private companies. Millions of dollars were stolen as defective equipment and poor service was delivered by companies that were hired to do the job.

People here fear corporate corruption, what receives the popular name of "chorizo". As long as companies engage in corruption schemes they will face people who will defend those government institutions as if it was their country.

What will happen to your country, when the US citizens become too poor to afford travel to Costa Rica and bring money into the country as tourists (which is, as far as I know, the only profitable sector of your economy. Your agricultural sector is only a small contribution). The money drain of your country would even increase, how can you stop it?

In the 1970s there was a slogan about "industrial tech conversion" but it was just blahblahblah... Same problem of parties and people who get into political parties who can't even collect garbage or repair grabage trucks when they reach municipalities.

What will happen to the stability of your country, when money really runs out? How many years do you think, is your country away from hyperinflation?

This why dollar is on the raise, to prevent currency leak.

Isn't it cool to see your medicine being tested in reality? Now, tell me, how is your estimate - does it fail because the medicine is actually a toxine or will you pretent, that the medicine is all right, but it is just the world economic model, which is the reason why Costa Rica spents more money as it owns?

Medicine - Costa Rica health system can be reformed with the price of an F-14 Tomcat, and still it is one of the most advanced health systems in the world, with New Zeland, Canada and UK.

As for using your freedom (I do not consider it as bashing) to point out problems of Costa Rica, I think it is great, for it gives an outsider perspective of things to be improved here. The more comments like those, the better, for it gives a good spectrum of things to be worked. That is called freedom, not bashing.

 

[Hashy]

Sarah Palin is hot.

 

[Urwumpe]

Then how do you explain falling of bridges and risk of floods in Sacramento?

http://www.safca.org/floodRisk/floodThreat.html

Medicine - Costa Rica health system can be reformed with the price of an F-14 Tomcat, and still it is one of the most advanced health systems in the world, with New Zeland, Canada and UK.

Sure it can. One shuttle launch less per year could replace the whole Costa Rica tax system.

 

[ar81]

I recall other cases that send a message to Costa Ricans about corporate corruption, aside of Instrumentarium and Alcatel, which prevents the creation of markets you mention.

PWS a case of insurances that is under investigation for money laundering.
JICA a japanese cooperation agency that is involved in misuse of funds.
GBM (local representative of IBM) created a payroll system that did not work properly, and that led to a national strike of teachers.

Politicians here can be bribed, or companies could underperform, but today you have auditing citizens that work like hunters. So nowadays you listen about scandals very often.

Someone thinks "if they did not see me when I did it, they will not catch me".
They are wrong.

And the actions of those companies prevent the creation of a private market.

Sure it can. One shuttle launch less per year could replace the whole Costa Rica tax system.

In the meantime you have americans coming here to enjoy our health service that is far cheaper than in US, even if you include plane ticket and hotel. It is called "medical tourism". I would feel glad if Americans could have a better health system.

 

[Urwumpe]

In the meantime you have americans coming here to enjoy our health service that is far cheaper than in US, even if you include plane ticket and hotel. It is called "medical tourism". I would feel glad if Americans could have a better health system.

Medical tourism says little about the state of the health system. It says more about the costs of it.

We have people from Germany also traveling to Spain for some medical treatments, which are pretty expensive in Germany, if you have no extra insurance. In Spain, they are slightly cheaper, but of course, there is a reason... the material used is often far worse as German medical minimum standards. The German medical system is still even slightly better as Spains in terms of quality, but the costs drive people to travel somewhere for a perceived cheap deal.

 

[fort]

Sarah Palin is hot.

"The map is not the territory"

 

[ar81]

Unfortunately, medical systems are not measured like that.
Health systems are assessed in terms of the effectiveness of the whole network.
Only very complex surgery is not covered by our system. But those are exceptions.
Health economy is one of the most complex specialities of economy. You can't judge it by the ordinary parameters becuase they behave diferently.

You won't get a debt for the rest of your life if your wife gives birth to a kid, like in US. You won't be charged for every napkin or bed a doctor uses.

Still, just like in any country, doctors may like to provide private services using govt assets, which is why 3 doctors are being prosecuted, and a government investigation is conducted as we speak.

We have people that can be easily bribed. But also since we do not have deer hunting, we hunt corrupted people.