On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:29*pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers to gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

Or perhaps "saving the West Bank Israeli settlements" *is* preventing
WW-IV (III is long over).