Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target

[Udie]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Dealing with international matters with Mexico is not comparable with hosting a peace sumit to end a 2000+ y/old war in the Middle East.  Frankly, it does not appear that Bush would be capable of this task.  He can't even study before debates.  His advisors say that once he is crammed with details he does poorly under pressure.  Isn't that a good quality to have when dealing with, sometimes hostile, international policies.

 LOL LOL  Oh man like Clinton has done a wonderful job in Isreal, how many people have died there in fighting durring the last 2 weeks?  Aint nobody gonna stop that fight but them or God.

 It's funny Reagan used to get all messed up if he studdied before debates too, remember the first debate in '94 with Mondale? Reagan looked totaly out of it. He came back in the second debate after "not studying" and whooped Mondale's pinko arse.  Strange part, using the logic of your post, is how Reagan became the BEST foriegn policy president since at least WW2, and ended the cold war, with help from Margaret Thatcher  

 Gore is good at pointing out the problems that the democrats have given us over the last 40 years, but he offers no solution except bigger governement which just adds to the problem, but hey Gore know's those details.  Bush could care less about the details he's more interested in a solution to the problems, which he offers.


 Got anything else? this one was too easy you can do better  

Udie

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Dealing with international matters with Mexico is not comparable with hosting a peace sumit to end a 2000+ y/old war in the Middle East.  Frankly, it does not appear that Bush would be capable of this task.  He can't even study before debates.  His advisors say that once he is crammed with details he does poorly under pressure.  Isn't that a good quality to have when dealing with, sometimes hostile, international policies.

Igloo,

Just a clue here. The election is for the President of the United States. Not for the leader of international relations. Job one is to take care of the US. You want to worry about "international relations" join the Peace Corps and do something besides talk.

Mav

[Igloo]

I've already joined the Red Cross.

Like it or not, the US has an obligation to act as Peacekeepers.  Something that comes with the package of having one of the most powerful militaries in the world.  

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
I've already joined the Red Cross.

I commend you Igloo <S>

Like it or not, the US has an obligation to act as Peacekeepers.  Something that comes with the package of having one of the most powerful militaries in the world.  
[/b]

Why?? Why on our nickel? That's one of the problems now, they (the current administration) have stretched the military all around the world while at the same time they have cut the budget year after year. Can't have it both ways.

Eagler

[Fatty]

 

Dealing with international matters with Mexico is not comparable with hosting a peace sumit to end a 2000+ y/old war in the Middle East. Frankly, it does not appear that Bush would be capable of this task.  He can't even study before debates. His advisors say that once he is crammed with details he does poorly under pressure. Isn't that a good quality to have when dealing with, sometimes hostile, international policies.

Preparation for debate?  Like telling the full story of some poor girl in a classroom that had no funding to even buy her a desk to sit in? (Said girl was standing, and had a stool available, because there was $100,000 worth of lab equipment in the room that had not been unpacked yet, and there was not room for another desk.)

Peace in the Middle East.  This would relate I suppose to Al Gore's signing of a treaty with Russia allowing them to sell weapons to Iran (in violation of current US embargo laws regarding Iran), letting them postpone the reduction of those sales, which they have yet to do?

Or is this relating to Bush's "mistake" regarding Russia?  It was very lightly reported that Bush's comments on Russia in regards to elections in Bosnia were directly in line with the White House statement earlier that afternoon, and some time later the Russians endorsed the opposition party.

Disregarding the shady stance(s) of the VP for a moment, we are indeed at a crossroads, and must decide if we want to head towards a govermental structure similar to the more liberal representative goverments, or keep our power structures more local.  Do you know gas actually costs less in England than in the US pre-tax?  Then they add ~$4 tax per gallon.  Goverment sponsered health care has resulted in private insurance and doctors, as the market disregards government directives and responds to the demand for quality health care and health care coverage.

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
I've already joined the Red Cross.

Like it or not, the US has an obligation to act as Peacekeepers.  Something that comes with the package of having one of the most powerful militaries in the world.  

Igloo,

The US does NOT have an "obligation to act as peacekeepers".  The US has the obligation of taking care of the US and it's national interests.

The one body that does have the obligation of being interested in acting on the basis of a "global" policy is the UN. Just because the US has a capable military does not mean it has the "obligation" to use it to enforce peace or to make a peace in an area of the world not in it's national interest.

Frankly in some cases I think things would be better if the US did not get involved in a decades or centuries old conflict. If the antagonists themselves can't grow up enough to stop the fighting and learn to get along they probably should be allowed to finish the conflict and get it over with.

Rather cold hearted opinion but at the same time if there is no realistic resolution in sight or even possible we serve no real purpose getting in the middle. This was called euphemistically an "exit strategy" when considering the usage of force. Another way of putting it is this. If you can't win it, don't get in it. Losing people to no real good outcome is not a valid policy.

Mav

[Dowding]

 

... Reagan became the BEST foriegn policy president since at least WW2...

You're joking, right?  

The man who, two days after 241 marines are killed in Bierut, invades Grenada because there are believed to be '...heavily armed Cuban insurgents...' over there. After quickly invading the place (which put up about as much resistance as randy White House intern.) Reagan promptly declares the shame of Vietnam has been erased!

It turned out that the '...Cuban revolutionaries...' were 100 construction workers, and were completely unarmed.

As for the rest of the world - well done Thatcher for selling arms to Iraq and propping up the regime.  

[funked]

Yeah right Dowding.  Those "construction workers" had enough small arms, artillery, AA guns, and patrol boats stockpiled to supply a division.  Maybe 100 of them were indeed "construction workers", but the other 700 Cuban soldiers put up a hell of a fight.  Go tell the 119 US soldiers who were wounded, or the families of the 19 who were killed, about how the "construction workers" were unarmed.

[Dowding]

The role of the Cubans depends on which accounts you believe. To this day there is a lot of controversy regarding the revolution and the US invasion (as I'm sure you know).

In Reagan's TV announcement (shortly after the Beirut attack) he stated he had satellite pictures which showed a secret Soviet-Cuban military airstrip. In reality, it was far from secret; US medical students jogged up and down it each day and tourists used it to get access to Grenada. Another interesting fact, is that key financial support for the strip came from neither Cuba or the USSR but Britain.

Bit of a mistake on Maggie's part; the phoneline to Washington must have been down the day that decision was made, since normally, Thatcher would say 'Yes! Absolutely!' before the phone even rang.

As for the invasion - it was 'easy' as far as invasions go. Most of the Grenadian armed forces were nothing more than militia and the country is absolutely tiny (100,000 inhabitants). There are some interesting facts about the invasion itself:

1) The medical students (who were apparently the main reason why the US invaded) radioed that they were in no danger, and despite this US Rangers 'saved' them - in the process, a mental hospital was bombed.
2) Cuban soldiers at the airport let paratroopers land, after reneging on a deal with the Grenadians to resist.
3) Seventeen members of the NJM (who instigated the revolution) were tried for the murder of another revolutionary in trials that were dubious in both their conduct and outcome.

The revolution itself was not as 'cut and dried' as the US made out. The blood thirsty image of revolution painted later, did not fit with the fact that only two deaths occurred during that time. It was a popularist revolution, to remove the nutter Gairy - who thought he was immortal, by the way. He was dictator in the Haitian mold.

There is also evidence that the US undermined the NJM; tourism by US citizens (a potential goldmine for any Carribean country) was made virtually impossible (a la Cuba) and some suggest the CIA was involved in assassination attempts on key members of the NJM leadership.

I find it hard not to see the whole thing as a PR stunt, especially on the back of the Beirut disaster; the death of the Marines must have severely tested the public's support of the deployment of US armed forces abroad. Now Reagan could demonstrate that that such deployment was vital if communism was to be surpressed (a very popular policy). In terms of foreign relations, by the UN's own legislation, intervention in Grenada was illegal and the UN security council was against it 11 to 1. Guess who the 'for' was?

However, as I said at the beginning, the events surrounding Grenada are pretty murky. There are many other theories out there.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-16-2000).]

[mietla]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Like it or not, the US has an obligation to act as Peacekeepers.  

Utter nonsense. If you wanna risk your life in some rat hole, "saving" people who do not want to be "saved", go ahead and volunteer (or send your kids instead). Leave my kids alone.


Where do you get those ideas?  

[funked]

Dowding I didn't say Grenada wasn't cheesy.  It was one of the lower moments of Reagan's regime.  But to say the US forces didn't meet resistance from military forces is an insult to those who were killed and wounded in the battle.

[Dowding]

Surely what really is insulting to their memory, is that they were used as a public relations tool?

Thatcher did the same in the Falklands, although there we did have international backing since the islands were British territory. Still, the conflict was a gift and did loads for Thatcher's popularity. Having said that though, it was very hard fought for - despite the common view held that it was a walkover. In 'Excursion to Hell', Vincent Bramley (an ex 3-Para) describes how there were US mercenaries there (who, when taken prisoner, were alledgedly executed to spare the blushes of Reagan) and a well equipped Argy special forces detachment. I think we lost 600 men in that action - I'm still in two minds about whether it was justified, since we stole the Falklands in the first place.

[Igloo]

mietla, from actually understanding the concept that most people's egos do not allow them to.  Those people living in a "rat hole" are just as important as any American, Canadian, British or any other nationality you can come up with.

"Sure, I love my neighbour, just as long as I don't have to do something for him".

You have the biggest military in the world.  Are you threatened by any nation?  Does any nation wish to attack you?  Does peacekeeping and helping the world become a better place leave you open to attack?  Instad of military remaining idle, why don't you do some good with it.

Bush says that he will enlarge the military in an effort to keep the peace through military might.  In other words, fighting wars to keep the peace.  That's flawed logic, "fighting wars for peace is like having sex for virginity".

Every nation has a responsiblity towards those less blessed.  The US just happends to have the most resources to do so.  Canada does not have a large army by your standards, yet we are deployed everywhere around the world as Peacekeepers.  Why arn't we whining?


------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Toad]

CANADA
 http://www.dnd.ca/menu/NI/eng/ds_hco_e.htm

"Reductions in defence in the 1990s produced the largest-ever downsizing of any organization in Canada in decades. Military personnel, which had already been reduced from a strength of 86,000 in 1989, were cut further from 76,000 in 1994 to the current strength of approximately 60,000. Equally, the Department's civilian workforce has seen reductions from 34,500 in 1994 to less than 20,000 today.

The reductions also resulted in a substantial re-configuration of the supporting infrastructure for the Canadian Forces in Canada through the closure of some two dozen bases and facilities across the country.

At $10.3 billion, the current defence budget represents approximately 1.2% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product.

This is the lowest level of defence spending since before the Second World War[/i]"

The US?
 http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101/largest.html

Our annual budget is approximately $280 billion. ( http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipatbls/NIP1-2.HTM   1999 US GDP 9,037.2 Billion. Therefore, US Defense spending is ~3.1% of GDP, more than DOUBLE that of Canada)

Deployments?[/b}

Canadian Armed Forces
Current Operations                       updated:September 15, 2000
   
Location  Mission Theatre Personnel

Balkans NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
OP PALLADIUM (OP JOINT FORGE)
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1676

***********

United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka
(UNMOP)
Croatia 1
UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
OP QUADRANT
Kosovo, FRY 110

********

Air Support to NATO forces in the Balkans
OP ECHO
Aviano, Italy 118

************

Middle East UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
OP DANACA
Golan Heights 192

************

UN Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
OP SNOWGOOSE
Cyprus 2
UN Truce Supervision Organization
OP JADE
Jerusalem 10
 
***********

Multinational Force and Observers (MFO)
OP CALUMET
Sinai 29


************

UN Special Commission (UNSCOM)
OP FORUM
New York City / Iraq 0
 
*************

UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
OP RECORD
Iraq & Kuwait  6

************

United States Air Force
(AWACS)
Monitor Iraq no-fly zone 5

**********

Arabian Gulf Deployment
OP AUGMENTATION
HMCS Calgary 235

**************
 
Africa UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL)
OP REPTILE
Sierra Leone 5

***************

UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (UNOMSIL)
OP CROCODILE

***************

Democratic Republic of Congo 2
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
OP ADDITION
Ethiopia and Eritrea 1

**************

Asia / Pacific United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
OP TOUCAN
East Timor 3

************

Americas UN Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA)
OP QUARTZ
Guatemala 1

************

Other NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic
STANAVFORLANT
HMCS Fredericton 225

NATO Airborne Early Warning Force
(NAEWF)
Geilenkirchen, Germany 8

Total 2515

Total Foreign Counties = 2515

Total Worldwide = "approximately 60,000"

Canadian Deployed = 4.2%


The US

"We are the nation’s largest employer, with 1.4 million men and women on active duty...another 1.28 million volunteers serving in the Guard and Reserve.

This map reflects our military’s operational tempo from the end of the Cold War through last year -- 99 major commitments of Americans in uniform, both active and reserve, to virtually every corner of the globe. Those marked in yellow are multi-year operations.

       

The impact these commitments have had on our military has been unrelenting -- our Army deployments have increased 300 percent in the past 10 years and in the last six years the number of deployed Navy ships on any given day has increased by 52 percent. And since 1986 the number of Air Force deployments has quadrupled.

These increasing commitments have not only affected our active forces. Last year alone some 235,000 Guardsmen and Reservists, averaging 19 days each, deployed overseas performing duties ranging from humanitarian and peacekeeping missions to readiness training.

ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY
September 30, 1998

 http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/


REGIONAL AREA/COUNTRY Total
 Army
 Navy
 Marine Corps
 Air Force
 
United States and Territories
 
Continental United States (CONUS)
 960,817
 344,724
 202,085
 131,040
 282,968
 
Alaska
 16,351
 6,676
 71
 128
 9,476
 
Hawaii
 34,643
 15,133
 7,882
 7,081
 4,547
 
Guam
 3,935
 30
 1,865
 7
 2,033
 
Johnston Atoll
 220
 205
 2
 0
 13
 
Puerto Rico
 1,970
 142
 1,763
 22
 43
 
U. S. Virgin Islands
 5
 4
 0
 0
 1
 
Transients
 30,368
 7,519
 11,695
 5,303
 5,851
 
Afloat
 98,650
 0
 98,011
 639
 0
 
Total
 1,146,959
 374,433
 323,374
 144,220
 304,932
 
Europe
 
Albania
 83
 2
 0
 80
 1
 
Austria
 24
 7
 0
 8
 9
 
Belgium*
 1,645
 994
 99
 34
 518
 
Bosnia and Herzegovina
 6,912
 6,900
 0
 9
 3
 
Bulgaria
 11
 3
 1
 5
 2
 
Croatia
 119
 101
 3
 4
 11
 
Cyprus
 52
 3
 0
 40
 9
 
Czech Republic*
 12
 2
 0
 10
 0
 
Denmark*
 38
 2
 9
 8
 19
 
Estonia
 2
 0
 1
 0
 1
 
Finland
 16
 2
 2
 10
 2
 
France*
 60
 9
 10
 23
 18
 
Germany*
 69,663
 55,720
 289
 181
 13,473
 
Gibraltar
 5
 0
 5
 0
 0
 
Greece*
 441
 10
 252
 10
 169
 
Greenland*
 130
 0
 0
 0
 130
 
Hungary*
 1,379
 1,357
 0
 17
 5
 
Iceland*
 1,651
 3
 945
 94
 609
 
Ireland
 8
 2
 0
 6
 0
 
Italy*
 11,519
 2,696
 4,423
 152
 4,248
 
Lithuania
 3
 1
 1
 1
 0
 
Luxembourg*
 6
 6
 0
 0
 0
 
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
 442
 441
 0
 0
 1
 
Malta
 4
 0
 0
 4
 0
 
Netherlands*
 685
 368
 12
 14
 291
 
Norway*
 96
 9
 12
 17
 58
 
Poland*
 24
 8
 1
 10
 5
 
Portugal*
 1,033
 19
 56
 23
 935
 
Romania
 9
 0
 1
 5
 3
 
Serbia
 37
 35
 0
 0
 2
 
Slovenia
 1
 0
 0
 0
 1
 
Spain*
 3,219
 5
 2,878
 98
 238
 
Sweden
 106
 1
 1
 98
 6
 
Switzerland
 21
 1
 2
 13
 5
 
Turkey*
 2,518
 312
 15
 19
 2,172
 
United Kingdom*
 10,156
 378
 1,177
 178
 8,423
 
Afloat
 4,314
 0
 2,161
 2,153
 0
 
Total
 116,444
 69,397
 12,356
 3,324
 31,367
 
Former Soviet Union
 
Armenia
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 
Azerbaijan
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 
Belarus
 4
 2
 0
 2
 0
 
Georgia
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 
Kazakhstan
 9
 3
 0
 6
 0
 
Kyrgyzstan
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 
Russia
 56
 12
 17
 26
 1
 
Ukraine
 15
 5
 2
 2
 6
 
Uzbekistan
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 
Total
 89
 27
 19
 36
 7
 
East Asia and Pacific
 
Australia
 322
 10
 39
 15
 258
 
Burma
 9
 2
 0
 6
 1
 
Cambodia
 2
 2
 0
 0
 0
 
China
 53
 9
 10
 29
 5
 
Indonesia
 41
 7
 20
 9
 5
 
Japan
 40,364
 1,799
 5,626
 19,184
 13,755
 
Korea, Republic of
 36,890
 27,918
 287
 105
 8,580
 
Laos
 3
 1
 0
 0
 2
 
Malaysia
 17
 4
 2
 6
 5
 
Marshall Islands
 27
 27
 0
 0
 0
 
New Zealand
 6
 2
 2
 0
 2
 
Philippines
 29
 9
 4
 8
 8
 
Singapore
 152
 6
 89
 17
 40
 
Thailand
 124
 40
 8
 42
 34
 
Vietnam
 14
 4
 0
 7
 3
 
Afloat
 17,627
 0
 15,525
 2,102
 0
 
Total
 95,680
 29,840
 21,612
 21,530
 22,698
 
North Africa, Near East, and South Asia
 
Algeria
 8
 2
 0
 5
 1
 
Bahrain
 916
 15
 667
 216
 18
 
Bangladesh
 7
 2
 0
 5
 0
 
Diego Garcia
 715
 10
 685
 0
 20
 
Egypt
 1,041
 918
 32
 26
 65
 
India
 21
 4
 3
 10
 4
 
Iraq
 3
 3
 0
 0
 0
 
Israel
 35
 4
 4
 16
 11
 
Jordan
 35
 13
 0
 16
 6
 
Kuwait
 3,921
 1,933
 12
 146
 1,830
 
Lebanon
 2
 2
 0
 0
 0
 
Morocco
 11
 2
 1
 5
 3
 
Nepal
 5
 0
 0
 5
 0
 
Oman
 97
 4
 0
 10
 83
 
Pakistan
 22
 4
 2
 11
 5
 
Qatar
 25
 23
 0
 0
 2
 
Saudi Arabia
 4,873
 737
 24
 44
 4,068
 
Sri Lanka
 5
 0
 1
 4
 0
 
Syria
 10
 4
 0
 6
 0
 
Tunisia
 14
 3
 2
 6
 3
 
United Arab Emirates
 313
 4
 6
 6
 297
 
Western Sahara
 1
 0
 0
 1
 0
 
Yemen
 8
 1
 0
 7
 0
 
Afloat
 15,781
 0
 15,781
 0
 0
 
Total
 27,869
 3,688
 17,220
 545
 6,416
 
Sub-Saharan Africa
 
Angola
 2
 2
 0
 0
 0
 
Botswana
 5
 2
 0
 3
 0
 
Burundi
 4
 0
 0
 4
 0
 
Cameroon
 7
 2
 0
 4
 1
 
Chad
 9
 3
 0
 6
 0
 
Congo (Kinshasa)
 10
 3
 0
 6
 1
 
Cote D'Ivoire
 23
 3
 1
 17
 2
 
Djibouti
 3
 3
 0
 0
 0
 
Ethiopia
 7
 2
 0
 5
 0
 
Ghana
 7
 2
 0
 5
 0
 
Guinea
 5
 0
 0
 5
 0
 
Kenya
 86
 14
 1
 69
 2
 
Liberia
 7
 1
 0
 5
 1
 
Mali
 6
 0
 0
 6
 0
 
Mozambique
 7
 0
 0
 7
 0
 
Niger
 6
 0
 0
 6
 0
 
Nigeria
 11
 1
 0
 8
 2
 
Rwanda
 2
 2
 0
 0
 0
 
Senegal
 8
 2
 1
 5
 0
 
Somalia
 231
 231
 0
 0
 0
 
South Africa
 34
 3
 1
 27
 3
 
St. Helena (Includes Ascension Island)
 2
 0
 0
 0
 2
 
Tanzania, United Republic of
 8
 0
 0
 8
 0
 
Togo
 6
 0
 0
 6
 0
 
Uganda
 6
 0
 0
 6
 0
 
Zambia
 5
 0
 0
 5
 0
 
Zimbabwe
 8
 3
 0
 5
 0
 
Total
 515
 279
 4
 218
 14
 
Western Hemisphere
 
Antigua
 2
 0
 0
 0
 2
 
Argentina
 27
 4
 7
 8
 8
 
Bahamas, The
 24
 0
 19
 5
 0
 
Barbados
 7
 1
 0
 6
 0
 
Belize
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 
Bolivia
 23
 8
 1
 9
 5
 
Brazil
 36
 5
 5
 20
 6
 
Canada
 156
 17
 57
 0
 82
 
Chile
 21
 4
 3
 9
 5
 
Colombia
 30
 11
 1
 13
 5
 
Costa Rica
 8
 2
 0
 6
 0
 
Cuba (Guantanamo)
 1,348
 145
 671
 531
 1
 
Dominican Republic
 11
 1
 1
 8
 1
 
Ecuador
 367
 355
 1
 6
 5
 
El Salvador
 21
 9
 0
 11
 1
 
Guatemala
 16
 7
 0
 8
 1
 
Haiti
 356
 300
 0
 56
 0
 
Honduras
 594
 402
 1
 11
 180
 
Jamaica
 8
 1
 1
 6
 0
 
Mexico
 25
 6
 4
 11
 4
 
Nicaragua
 9
 3
 0
 5
 1
 
Panama
 4,694
 2,622
 102
 258
 1,712
 
Paraguay
 10
 3
 0
 6
 1
 
Peru
 26
 4
 3
 13
 6
 
Suriname
 2
 2
 0
 0
 0
 
Trinidad and Tobago
 7
 0
 0
 7
 0
 
Uruguay
 9
 1
 0
 7
 1
 
Venezuela
 28
 8
 2
 9
 9
 
Afloat
 2,920
 0
 2,669
 251
 0
 
Total
 10,786
 3,922
 3,548
 1,280
 2,036
 
Undistributed
 
Ashore
 8,216
 2,294
 3,933
 1,989
 0
 
Afloat
 272
 0
 272
 0
 0
 
Total
 8,488
 2,294
 4,205
 1,989
 0
 
Total - Foreign Countries
 259,871
 109,447
 58,964
 28,922
 62,538
 
Ashore
 218,957
 109,447
 22,556
 24,416
 62,538
 
Afloat
 40,914
 0
 36,408
 4,506
 0
 
*NATO Countries
 104,275
 61,898
 10,178
 888
 31,311
 
Forward Deployment Pacific Theater
 100,610
 30,095
 24,170
 21,572
 24,773
 
Total - Worldwide
 1,406,830
 483,880
 382,338
 173,142
 367,470
 
Ashore
 1,267,266
 483,880
 247,919
 167,997
 367,470
 
Afloat
 139,564
 0
 134,419
 5,145
 0
 
 

Total - Foreign Countries = 259,871

Total - Worldwide =  1,406,830

US deployed = ~ 18.5%

**************

There, now that we have the FACTS straight, we can look at some OPINION.  

Igloo:Every nation has a responsiblity towards those less blessed. The US just happends to have the most resources to do so. Canada does not have a large army by your standards, yet we are deployed everywhere around the world as Peacekeepers. Why arn't we whining? Igloo End Quote

Simple explanation.

At $10.3 billion, the current defence budget represents approximately 1.2% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product.

Our annual budget is approximately $280 billion. 1999 US GDP 9,037.2 Billion. Therefore, US Defense spending is ~3.1% of GDP, nearly TRIPLE that of Canada)

Canadian Military Deployed = 4.2%

US Military deployed = ~ 18.5%
 
Pretty easy to see why you folks are "not whining". Any info on when you are going to pick up your fair share of the "responsiblity towards those less blessed"?


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]

[mietla]

   

Originally posted by Igloo:
Those people living in a "rat hole" are just as important as any American, Canadian, British or any other nationality you can come up with.

I never said they are less important, what I said is that we as a nation owe them nothing. Most of the "rat hole" people are there becase they've dug it for themselves, and they are ready to bite a helping hand. Would you like to see a naked, lifeless body of your son dragged and kicked by a mob in Somalia.

If you as an individual feel that you should help, please feel free to do so (and I'll admire that), but leave the decision whether I (or my family) should participate to me.

   

Does peacekeeping and helping the world become a better place leave you open to attack?  Instad of military remaining idle, why don't you do some good with it.
[/b]

You seem to completely misunderstand the role of the military. The military has only one purpose, the national defence. Their elegiance is to this nation, and nobody else.

Every nation is ultimately responsible for their destiny.

BTW, do you think that Somalia is a "better place" now, after all those Americans dead?

   

Every nation has a responsiblity towards those less blessed.  
[/b]

Again, not true. This nation is not blessed. Everything what we have, has been produced with hard work, sacrifice and blood by generations before us.

You are talking like Dick Gephard for whom the people who have money "have won a lottery of life". What a shameless crap.

Only a politician or a complete looser envious of other people's success can say a thing like that.

We haven't won anything, we have worked very hard for it and we owe nothing to anyone.

Nothing bugs me more that a do-gooder who is trying to make the world a "better place", using my time, my money, and my life, but his definition of what the "better place" means.



[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 10-18-2000).]