Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on August 02, 2001, 04:01:00 PM
-
From the CIA factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/indexgeo.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/indexgeo.html)
United States
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $276.7 billion (FY1999 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY1999 est.)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $6.9 billion (1997)
Austria
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.7 billion (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $452 million (1998)
Belgium
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.8 billion (FY99)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $764 million (1997)
Denmark
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.822 billion (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.7% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.6 billion (1997)
Finland
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.8 billion (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $379 million (1997)
France
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $39.831 billion (FY97)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.5% (FY97)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $6.3 billion (1997)
Germany
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $32.8 billion (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.5% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $5.6 billion (1998)
Greece
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $4.04 billion (FY98 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%
Economic aid - recipient: $5.4 billion from EU (1997 est.)
Ireland
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $732 million (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 0.9% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $240 million (1999)
Italy
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $23.294 billion (FY99)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.7% (FY99)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.3 billion (1997)
Luxembourg
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $131 million (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $160 million (1999)
Netherlands
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $6.956 billion (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $3.4 billion (1999)
Portugal
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.458 billion (FY97)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.6% (FY97)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $271 million (1995)
Spain
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $6 billion (FY97)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.1% (FY97)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.3 billion (1995)
Sweden
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $5 billion (FY98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.1% (FY98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.7 billion (1997)
United Kingdom
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $36.884 billion (FY97/98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.7% (FY97/98)
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $3.4 billion (1997)
Canada
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $7.4 billion (FY97/98)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY97/98
Economic aid - donor: ODA, $2.1 billion (1997)
EU + Canada spent 174.3 billion on their collective military.
US spent 276 billion.
EU + Canada net donated aid was ~23.4 billion.
US donated aid 6.9 billion.
Roughly a 100 billion difference in military spending. Roughly 16.5 billion difference in donated aid. Be nice if we could spend even HALF of that military difference on aid.
-
India; China; Japan; Israel?? Wonder what percentage THEY spend on their military.. I'm just curious. :)
My, My... lookit the French! The scurvy frogs are spending some heavy cash on their military. Wonder what their sub forces look like these days. Who are they gearing up to tango with I wonder... Luxembourg?
Aid?? Why spend more?
Be better if we redirected what aid we do send to places where the intended needy recipients actually receive it.
-
Hell... I'm a liberal and I disagree.
More aid... psshaw...
FWIW, the government spends 95% of their time arguing over 5% of the money. The majority of the budget is already obligated before the legislative branch gets to start making changes. If you want more cash for aid or anything else, the place to look is entitlements.
Oh... and I must also say... you want more money? End the drug war.
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
WTG USA #1 USA #1 USA, USA, USA..... :) lol
-
BTW Israel is 9.4% GDP
They seem to wanna really wanna kill them Palestinians something bad......
-
test
-
Yah gotta love the CIA... thanks for that link Toad. Now they know where we are. :)
Oddly enuff, just about every country on that list is shellin out big bucks for aid.
To who?
[andy rooney mode]
Ever wonder what all the countrys of the worlds aid output looks like in total $... (gawd; that's gotta be a huge number!)
Ever wonder what that number looks like compared to the population number of the really 'needy' nations?
(Be prepared to debate the list of "needy nations". :D)
Ever wonder how much less our country would have to spend on aid if all the other countrys didn't send THEIR aid donations to each other?
Ever wonder what would happen it we spent HALF what we sent abroad in aid on our own destitue, sick, infirm and old citizens?
[/andy rooney mode]
-
Well, the part that makes me wonder is WHY we are spending so much on OUR military.
We clearly have one of, if not THE, largest military in the world. We can fight land wars, naval wars, air wars and we have a very large ballistic/nuke capability.
Where's the threat TO THE US that justifies this?
Answer: There really isn't one. We maintain most of this huge capability for the benefit of others. In return, we get insulted. :)
Assume for a moment we brought 95% of our deployed troops and assets home to the US.
Hearken back to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Remember how long it took ALL those nations to assemble an overwhelming force to attack what amounted to a third-rate military power?
Now think about a nation or group of nations trying to mount an "air-land battle" against the US. First of all, they'd need a jumping off point against the US, like Canada or Mexico. Unlike Iraq, we have a real Navy. It's doubtful the cargo convoys would arrive uneventfully. The "air bridge" bringing supplies would bump up against an Air Force that, unlike Iraq's, is pretty capable.
So, while all that is pretty far-fetched anyway, it's still highly unlikely that the US is going to be invaded in the classic sense. Those two big oceans are pretty amazing allies.
We already have a larger ICBM/sub/bomber nuke force than we need to counter any MAD type threat from anyone.
In reality, about the only thing we have to fear is the nuke/bio terrorist type scenario. Deploying a large military overseas is more likely to increase the possiblity of that scenario than lessen it.
So why are we maintaining this huge military machine overseas? It's not to defend the territorial integrity or security of the US, obviously. In fact, it most likely increases the chance of a serious terrorist attack on the US.
Seems pretty pointless to do it for people that continually revile us.
Just my .02.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
My, My... lookit the French! The scurvy frogs are spending some heavy cash on their military. Wonder what their sub forces look like these days. Who are they gearing up to tango with I wonder... Luxembourg?
Wrong ...
We are making provision to invade Canada ;)
Obviouly next target will be Louisiana :D and some other states on the way to Louisiane :)
-
"So why are we maintaining this huge military machine overseas? It's not to defend the territorial integrity or security of the US, obviously."
Maybe to protect "our interests" on foreign soil: cheap oil and governments that are "hospitable" to US corporations.
"Seems pretty pointless to do it for people that continually revile us."
If we were really trying to "do something" for those people, the military budget, and foreign aid budget numbers would be reversed.
Also, don't forget that the military has powerful friends in congress, who are getting major funding from military contractors. If they can't find a real need to spend money, they will invent one.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Oddly enuff, just about every country on that list is shellin out big bucks for aid.
To who?
Not long ago i read on a website just about this, need to find the site again. Most of the aid goes for tide-disaster(sp?) victims, earthquake victims, countrys like somalia where's not enough food (no rain only desert) for the people ect.
Another part is helping some countrys
build up (reconstruction) after a war (ie. croatia, yugoslavia).
Well its mostly for people thought to help who cant help itself anymore, any we have really alot natural-catastrophes(sp?) the last years.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Gh0stFT ]
-
Popeye,
Maybe it's long past time to let oil find its free market price? Might be a period of painful adjustment but wouldn't that stimulate alternative energy research and solve the problem of Detroit producing gas guzzlers?
Perhaps US corporations should assume some risk when they "go abroad" into politically unstable markets and production areas? Why should the US military be there to bail out SuperCorp when a revolution in Nowhersia threatens their factory? Perhaps they should have taken that into account when they built the factory? After all, there is a stable business environment in the US that would not include that risk, right? In the US, where our troops should be anyway?
There's jobs for the military at home; just not as many of them. Time we scaled back a bit. You can throw up your hands and let things continue status quo... or not. No matter how you slice it, the US does not need a military this large. :)
In the same way, it's long past time for other countries to wean themselves away from the military shield of US troops. The situation that existed 60 years ago simply does not exist anymore.
Time to bring the troops home, seriously consider what we need to defend the territorial integrity of the US, perhaps provide a reasonably sized "quick reaction force" to help out in UN authorised events and then DOWNSIZE our military accordingly.
-
Originally posted by popeye:
"So why are we maintaining this huge military machine overseas? It's not to defend the territorial integrity or security of the US, obviously."
Maybe to protect "our interests" on foreign soil: cheap oil and governments that are "hospitable" to US corporations.
"Seems pretty pointless to do it for people that continually revile us."
If we were really trying to "do something" for those people, the military budget, and foreign aid budget numbers would be reversed.
Also, don't forget that the military has powerful friends in congress, who are getting major funding from military contractors. If they can't find a real need to spend money, they will invent one.
Perfect center on target, Popeye!! :)
It's sad Toad and Hang will never admit this ;)
-
we maintain the biggest military in the world because noone could ever ever f*ck with the united states. we have the strongest military in the world, and i hope we always retain that strength.
-
Keep you finghers (sp?) out of other's land and/or economy and maybe nobody will care to f*ck you.
I guess.
(And remember, you dont save our arse, we were on the other side ;) )
:p
-
Naso,
Read what I wrote. Remember the other threads.
You and I ARE on the same side in this discussion. ;)
-
Ouch :o
Ooops, you're right :o
I'm so used to made nice flamewars with you that I misread your posts, doh! :D
Rereading it, I agree... with you
(Oh, my... what i've said!!! :eek: )
;) :p
-
<S> Naso.
-
<S> Toad. :)
-
Originally posted by Naso:
Keep you finghers (sp?) out of other's land and/or economy and maybe nobody will care to f*ck you.
Last time I was in Italy, I have not seen any american occupation troops forcing you to buy american products or watch american movies. If you want americans out of your economy, buy Italian.
miko
-
What percent of their GDP do Iraq, Iran, Libya, and China spent on their military?
-
Ding, im not sure if those countrys have an GDP at all. My gues is they spend all money they can get into military, and zero in aid (and this all even they mostly can't feed theyr own people).
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Time to bring the troops home, seriously consider what we need to defend the territorial integrity of the US, perhaps provide a reasonably sized "quick reaction force" to help out in UN authorised events and then DOWNSIZE our military accordingly.
Our military IS downsized. Joint staff analysis shows that Army contingency deployments are 15 times what they were in 1989; the number of Air Force personnel deployed is 39% higher than in Vietnam with a fraction of the number of people; the Navy responded to 2.4 times as many crises in the 1990s than the 1980s with only 63% of the people and half the ships. The service budgets have been reduced considerably since 1985 in constant-year dollars. At the same time, defense agency budgets have increased by 70%!
Here's the juice... Including health care and other defense-wide expenses, defense infrastructure costs have increased by 264% for a force that is 40% smaller than it was in 1985.
Bringing the troops home will save you NOTHING.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
So if your military is already smaller, but you are spending more on it, where is that money actually going?
'In return, we get insulted'. If that isn't a statement couched in self-pity, I don't know what is. :)
Cheap oil and free global markets. Good investments, I should think; you don't really believe the American administration would go on with this situation if it was not intrinsically beneficial to it?
I'd like to know how willing the average American would be to carry an increase in fuel prices - which is what would happen if the oil company's had to support more of the cost in keeping market's open.
What will all this personnel do once it returns to the States? Sweep the streets?
I can see the recruitment posters:
'Join the Army - see how to really keep a street clean'
I've always thought one of the attractions of the Forces (in any country) was the prospect of foreign travel.
-
I'm with Toad and the Nose. :)
So if your military is already smaller, but you are spending more on it, where is that money actually going?
Dowding the military has gotten smaller but they are upgrading equipment. They seem to be trying to have a smaller force that is more potent per-unit or per-man.
-
I disagree Sandman.
The increased deployments into hostile environments ARE way more expensive than maintaining a peacetime training posture. Particularly a peactime training posture AT HOME.
Why have we patrolled two no-fly zones in Iraq for 10 years? While France, the UK and the US declared the zones, almost the entire operation is performed by US aircraft. (The Brits are supplying a Tornado squadron but AFAIK the French haven't supplied aircraft.)
Iraq does not pose a direct threat to the US. Iraqi troops are not going to land at Atlantic city.
You think those deployments haven't raised our defense costs? Additionally, somebody is helping Iraq improve its air defenses. Costs are going to go up further, probably in blood as well as money.
The Balkans? You think THAT operation is cheaper than keeping those troops at home?
No Serb troops are poised to invade the US.
The list goes on and on. The increasing number of deployments to events that do not threaten the sovereignity or integrity of the US (human rights deployments, etc) are EXPENSIVE.
I'll wager the US contributes more to those operations than anyone. Why should we do more than our share?
Additionally, we spend of lot of money renting facilities from host countries. The government already owns and operates underutilized bases stateside. There'd be a savings there.
We pay COLA for overseas deployments that would be reduced stateside.
We spend extra money moving dependents on accompanied tours.
This list is endless as well.
Overall, we need to cut out the excessive temporary :rolleyes: deployments and the needless overseas troop permanent deployments.
We don't need a military this large to defend the sovereignity and integrity of the US. We don't need a military this large to do our share in international UN "human rights" operations.
-
Believe me Dowding, it isn't any kind of pity. It's simply a statement of fact, coupled to a much different emotion. :D
We're spending more on the military partly because troop deployments into a combat situation are vastly more expensive than peacetime operations.
Your concern over the potential downsizing of the US military is quite touching. :)
Don't worry, we have lots to do here at home. Right now our unemployment is about at the average for the last 10 years. Recently it was significantly below that.
-
Yep I'm pretty sure US employers would be able to find something for a few hundred thousand clean-cut disciplined young men to do. :)
Just imagine if all those guys were out there contributing to the economy instead of using up tax dollars. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
So if your military is already smaller, but you are spending more on it, where is that money actually going?
There it is, the $64,000 question.
Here's a good place to start digging for the answer: http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2002budget/ (http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2002budget/)
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
China:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - Western analysts believe that China's real defense spending is several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)
Iran:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $5.787 billion (FY98/99)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.9% (FY98/99)
Iraq:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%
Libya:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $NA
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%
(you gotta marvel at these two - the CIA don't know how much Iraq or Libya spend on their military ;) <I suppose with iraq, they're more used to just checking the receipts> )
South Korea:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $9.9 billion (FY98/99)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY98/99)
North Korea:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $3.7 billion to $4.9 billion (FY98 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 25% to 33% (FY98 est.)
Taiwan:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $8.042 billion (FY98/99)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.8% (FY98/99)
Well there you go, and remember kids, all these figures are from the CIA, so they'll definitely be factual and impartial, because the CIA would never lie to the American Public or the rest of the world. :D
-
Dead,
The CIA may indeed be in error. They have been before.
I eagerly await your revelation of a site with better, "guaranteed" numbers.
Please do publish the link when you find it.
:D
-
Dammo.. so easy to forget history, particularly when we didn't live it.
If the US had the same force deployments and foreign policy attitude in 1939 that it has now, Germany woulda never been allowed to touch Austria or the Czech Republic.. That 'mistake' cost about 60 million lives.
More History... England; tired of the expense of maintaining a Navy lost an entire empire.. as soon as the first world war broke out in europe, they were under strength.. the house of cards started to fall.
I see guys I respect look out on the world and say "Where's the Threat??" and I marvel at their blindness. Politicans being what they are; and starving people being what THEY are, how can you not expect the former to misinterpet the goals of the latter and leave us in a postion of being a beseiged island in a world gone mad?
Yah; it's an ugly job.. being the 'worlds policeman'... but dammit; better we stomp out the fires where they start rather than letting the blazes combine and take us back to where we were 60 years ago.
Our fathers and grandfathers made a big investment.. not just in Mobil, but in AMERICA, and what it stands for... and if that means we take some losses trying to help out the somali's; or stabilizing the balkans; or keeping the Chineese and India 'honest' in forein affairs, then so be it. Better we take the fight THERE than wait for it to come here.
Because sure as History; it will if we stick our head in the sand and wait for it..[/i]
-
Hang, I'm not forgetting history. Far from it.
However, the world HAS changed. Things are different than they were 60 years ago. The UN, piss-poor though it is, is far more effective than the League of Nations was. There is a collective history for all of us that wasn't there in '39. The world has seen what madmen on the march can do and not that long ago. Saddam gave a quick refresher course not long ago.
You'll note that in my above arguments I mentioned US forces that could deploy to support UN authorized actions.
I just no longer think it's necessary that the US be the ONLY policeman out there on the streets.
The critics that have been hurling the rotten fruits and vegetables deserve their chance to walk the easy beat while we cool it in the station house for a while.
Turnabout is certainly fairplay in this case.
Sandman's being a bit disingenuous when he suggests deployed forces are no more expensive than those based at home. Any time you stretch out supply lines, costs go up dramatically, in many areas.
You mention ignoring the "threat". Where? Where is the threat that requires us to maintain nearly 20% (probably more since I last checked a while ago) of our huge military in a deployed status?
Europe? NATO is still there; where's the opponent that can overrun the NATO nations even without us basing troops in Europe?
Asia? We couldn't stop China in a non-nuke land war in any place we tried. Our supply lines are way too long. (Same problem any would be attacker of the CONUS faces.) So that would be foolish. If it goes nuke, the B-2's are in Missouri anyway. ;)
Korea? Been there, done that. Time for the ROKS to be at least as tough as their poor neighbors to the North. I'm CERTAIN the UN would send troops anyway, right? :) Doesn't have to be just us. We've got what, 30,000 troops on the DMZ? As if. You'd still be behind the power curve if the balloon went up.
Same for Taiwan.
Israel/Palestine? You KNOW we're not getting into that mess.
Iraq and the Gulf? Been there, done that. Same deal; we don't keep enough troops there to stop anything. They'd have to be reinforced. Again, I'm CERTAIN the UN would act and send troops as well. :)
All in all, we don't need a military the size that we have now. No where close to it, in fact. Enough to defend the US and additional to provide a creditable rapid deployment force to augment the rest world community's forces when the UN chooses to act.
"All we are sa-a-a-a--a-a-y-y-y-y-ing is give PEACE a chance!" :)
Beat your sword into a plowshare, brother. We've reached the promised land and the rest of the world community is going to step up and do their fair share. Sleep well tonight; the UN is awake. :D
-
Toad, which countries do you think are not doing their fair share of peacekeeping?
-
Nashwan,
It's not our turn. It's BEEN our turn.
It's everyone's turn but ours. :D
Call if you need help, OK?
:D
-
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/03/military.base.closures/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/03/military.base.closures/index.html)
"One of those already voicing skepticism is Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, who criticized the Defense Department for targeting mainly domestic bases.
Europeans are big enough, wealthy enough to defend themselves and what are they defending themselves against?" Lott asked. "I just think it is time we take a look at bases overseas as well."
Exactly.
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
A technologically superior force is what we need, not numerically superior. Pull back from our overseas deployments, and shed the pork barrel bases in the U.S.
At least we have given up on the 2-war delusion, and they are talking about cutting 25% of CONUS bases, that is a step in the right direction.
Spend some savings on the grunts, get em off welfare, at least.
-
Originally posted by -dead-:
China:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - Western analysts believe that China's real defense spending is several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)
North Korea:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $3.7 billion to $4.9 billion (FY98 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 25% to 33% (FY98 est.)
These two countries are probably are next msjor enemies. China MAY be an exception, since they are growing increasingly capitalist and the Commies there may soon hafta give up power. However, as long as the Commies are still in power there, they should remain an enemy.
North Korea: where exactly do you think all that money is going to in their military? Probably nukes and nuke developement...Tis why an ABM shield is needed--the ABM treaty doesnt apply to them.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Sandman's being a bit disingenuous when he suggests deployed forces are no more expensive than those based at home. Any time you stretch out supply lines, costs go up dramatically, in many areas.
That's not really what I meant. My point was that the services, the operational men and women out at the tip of the spear are expected to do more with less while the budget allocated for infrastructure seems to be increasing. If you're looking to decrease the defense budget, I think you need to look at infrastructure costs rather than operational costs.
And while you're at it... look at all that PORK.
REP. BARNEY FRANK: I think, you know, part of the problem is he knew what I was going to say, which is that it has frankly been he and his colleagues who have foisted on the pentagon unnecessary spending, wasteful spending for the C-130, because it was in Speaker Gingrich's district, four ships under Trent Lott's district, four extra planes elsewhere, the Pentagon, four more nuclear weapons than the Pentagon wants. I agree we should be dealing with readiness and the less glamorous aspects, but unfortunately congress has over the past few years voted in pork, and John McCain has cited $5 billion worth of what he calls pork - unnecessary spending generated by political needs domestically. If you hadn't done that, then we would have had that money available. And I'm prepared in the future to make the money available for the troops and for the ammunition but the waste and the B-2 bomber continues to be a great white elephant which has never been used, is almost certain never to be used, and at the cost of tens of billions of dollars.
From the Cato Handbook:
The 104th Congress added $6.9 billion in additional appropriations to the Pentagon's fiscal year 1996 budget and $11 billion more than the $254 billion the Clinton administration requested to the FY97 military budget. According to an assessment by the Pentagon comptroller, only about half the extra dollars Congress has added for weapons purchases accelerate programs already budgeted in long-range service plans. Of the remainder, about $3.3 billion, or 46.6 percent, qualifies as pork for programs not budgeted beyond FY97.
Much of the extra money was added to weapons systems the Pentagon did not request. Despite the fact that the administration does not want more funding for the B-2 bomber, for example, the FY97 authorization act added $212 million for it. Congress also added $539 million for the Aegis destroyer and $799 million for the New Attack Submarine.
The FY97 authorization act also added $82 million to the administration's request for B-1B bomber upgrades. That is a particularly wasteful expenditure. The Pentagon considers the B-1B's current capability sufficient to interdict enemy targets. Moreover, the General Accounting Office and the Air Force estimate that the modified B-1B would strike only a very small percentage of the Air Force's designated targets, and Unified Command officers have said they would use far fewer B-1Bs than even the Pentagon says are necessary.
According to John McCain, Congress added $7 billion in unrequested spending to the fiscal 2001 defense spending bill.
Oh... and one more time, say it along with me... End the drug war now.
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
It would be interesting to see Japan's defense spending as well as its donor spending. I know it used to be the largest donor nation in the world, outdoing the USA.
Iran is actually a lot more modern than you guys give it credit for. It is also in the process of struggling to decide its future. By and large the Iranian people want to liberlize, witness their last two presidential elections, but the hard liners want to stay the course of hostility and oppression. Hopefully they get things worked out ok. Interestingly, Iran is the biggest blocker of opiates for the United States, indirectly of course.
Sandman,
I agree "End the drug war". Its ludicrious and horribly destructive tou our nation, socially and financially.
The only way I can explain the drug war is that our government has gone off the deep end and declared a jihad on the stuff. There is no rationality to it.
-
FYI, I would treat all of those numbers with a good deal of skepticism, as they don't include spending on secret projects (If we knew, they wouldn't be secret! :D ) and the U.S. spends more and more every year on secret projects (or so it is reported..lol).
I am sure that holds true for other countries as well.
-
Well... the U.S. defense budget numbers are public knowledge, until you start looking for details. The bottom line is correct.
-
good lord someone quoting barney frank.........
shshsh almost heard the lisp......
-
Demonstrate that our day to day lives AND our future security would be IMPROVED NOTICEABLY by a dramatic pullback from overseas staging and basing.
Not one thin dime 'saved' by the defense department will find its way into OUR pockets. But every cent cut; every foriegn posting abandoned will certainly destabilize and turn some parts of this planet into a powderkeg.
Whats stopping China from right NOW stepping into Indonesia to 'assist' the besieged communist rebels there? If we had withdrawn completely from the area, pulled out the two taskgroups patrolling there would Taiwan still be 'independent'??
No.
Our ability to AT NEED react GLOBALY
is critical. We've been doing it for the last 50 years; and America is doing just frekin fine. Lets do it for 50 more, by then; hopefully the world won't need babysitting. The information age will have had it's effect.
Lets check out when the job we set out to do is finished... and it ain't finished yet.
The UN is not competent at military affiars. By nature it cannot be anything but "too little; too late." Signing our protection of national intrests over to a body politic that has demonstrated countless times that it is incapable of enforcing it's own decrees is ludicrious.
Hold the line. The game ain't over yet.
-
I know this is a bearpit, but I'm going to stick my oar in.
Toad, the world has *not* changed. Africa is a mess, and India and China are nations with burgeoning populations and limited areas. Both the latter can shrig off all but the most devastating nuclear strikes: 90% population loss would still leave each country with over 100 million people.
China will look to expand to Taiwan, Japan, Mongolia, and Russia.
India is hemmed in by the Himalayas but might try and expand westwards.
Israel/Palestine is set to explode. If the conflict can be kept non-nuclear, this might end up being a good thing, settling the issue for a very long time to come.
If the Argentine economy tanks, they might take another crack at the Falklands.
-
Well... I did discover one thing on this thread. My opinions are typically to the left, but I'm on the right compared to Toad.
:)
-
Sandman, I'm like an onion. Every time you think you're there, there's still another layer. ;)
Qts, it HAS changed. The UN can be the "policeman on the block" now. I've been hearing how the EC is ready to step up to a leadership role... I'm certainly ready to let them.
I think quelling those minor disturbances in the Gaza strip would be a great place to start. There's all those other opportunites you mention as well.
Since the US has consistently "screwed the pooch" on everything since '45 .. and since we're a bit worn out with some problems at home to fix... it's best to send in some fresh faces to solve all the world's problems.
It isn't the same. This isn't the post-war world, this isn't the Cold War world. This is the new reality.
OK, guys, you've got it! Show us what you can do!
(BTW, think you folks could manage the Northern and Southern Iraq no-fly zones for a while? The US and the Brits have been doing that for nigh on to 10 years now. Perhaps someone else could give our equipment and our pilots a break? Thanks in advance! Or maybe we should just end the zones?)
-
<<<However, the world HAS changed. Things are different than they were 60 years ago. >>>
Toad, what has changed is that the US became a military superpower. Nobody gets to have a big war or we will show up, pick a side, and bomb the crap out of everything. A good old fashioned American aluminum overcast takes all the fun & profit out of war for everyone involved.
BTW, the UN is a frikkin joke. It's just a way for a bunch of 3rd world dictatorships to 'vote' on what the rest of the world should do.
ra