wrote:

Nothing could be further from the truth. The war will be the problem with your children's economy. All this money being spent is being borrowed.

As no master of international economics, it still occurs to me that borrowing has at least two effects that are quicker:

1. The country providing the money (in this case China to a large extent) becomes a kind of partner who has a say in your affairs.

2. The pressures to inflate the currency increase. What better apparent way to make a debt worth less?

It is true that the war is only a part of this. But surely we can all think of better uses for those resources.

A Spigot Function iterating the first 10 million digits of Pi. Also looking for the largest 10 digit prime number inside the first 1 million positions of Pi.

Why would you want to use a spread sheet for either of those?

wrote:

You make the mistake of thinking Bush and these radical extremists in power would ever do that, make wise use of resources.

No, I was not thinking that, and must be missing what you mean.

wrote:

Funny how they pretend Saddam Hussein either never really existed or refuse to admit he was a dilemma, the central problem and the Cold War- Stalinist- remnant in the Middle East.

Saddam Hussein the central problem in the ME in 2002? No, there were several better candidates for that distinction. Israel and Saudi Arabia would be near the top. Oh, wait, that cannot be right; they are our allies.

His economic policies.

Yes, if planned rationally, the purpose must have been to bankrupt the US.

Godot is not European just as Thrasher is neither black nor an activist.

An honest dialogue: Of course, but it does not take too long to learn if that is the intent or not.

Though I mostly agree with what Scott Ritter says, there is a problem with his characterization of AIPAC. It is not really the agent of a foreign power; it is much worse than that. It is rather an organization that has succeeded in gaining power in the US for its own purposes by acting as a channel for Israel's interests. That is, the resources that it gathers serve a dual purpose.

Somewhere back there a ways before the feud took over rufus11 dumped on those ignorant folk who think ownership is the problem. Well, in the case of NBC owned by GE, it is clear that the news is owned by a defense contractor, not a mere maker of electric irons and washing machines. But does he have a point for some of the others? Not really. Back in the 90s when Disney acquired ABC, friends more savvy than I said: watch what is going to happen. And it did. (The move to the right)

Here is a link to an article by John Garvey from Sept 8, 1995 discussing just these possibilities. Brief excerpt:

What will it mean for the objectivity and independence of news organizations? In fact, ABC has done serious and critical reporting of the Disney company; this obviously won't happen any more, and if, as it might be, CBS is bought by Westinghouse, you will not see CBS critics bemoaning the vapidity of the fare offered on Westinghouse radio stations, or criticizing its appliances.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n15_v122/ai_17386251

wrote:

But I truly think that the media-military-industrial complex has to be much more complex than we want it to be.

I agree that it is complex. But what kind of complexity? Brought about by many causes, or a complex response mostly from a single change? The latter makes more sense to me. The idea is to find a change, possibly one that affects all countries, and then determine why the US responded as it has.

The US has a lot of people who are very authoritarian in nature. But they are spread out over a large area. Starting in the 19th and accelerating especially towards the end of the 20th century, we have seen tremendous improvements in communication between individuals and groups of all sizes. This enables coherent behavior when there was a degree of randomness before. It is not surprising that authoritarian behavior on a national scale is reinforced in this environment.

I find such jewels of wisdom as...

Just because he's young, looks great and exercises doesn't mean he's completely healthy. And given what an important figure he is, to ignore his smoking history is to miss an educational opportunity.

Yes, they are talking about Obama. Inquiring minds want to know.

Disclosure was the movie. I agree that his politics are so obviously on the right that one should be very careful when he says something that appears to be not so. Jurrasic Park was fun for my children some years ago.

Since our president is retiring soon, we think, it is time to discuss what his future holds. It is probably too late for him to get back into the baseball business, and so I have a suggestion, which I hope has not already been thought of since it is pretty obvious: establish a new company called Bush 43 Brands, Inc. It could offer a number of products, or endorse existing products, based on the experiences of the last eight years.

One product relevant to today's topic would be:

The complete Water Boarding Package. Comes with all the materials you need and an instructional video featuring real intelligence operatives at work. Just add water.

Perhaps other commenters can suggest more products on topic, or save your ideas for another day. (OK, I am working on a complete FISA subversion package; it comes with built-in immunity.)