How much does the U.S spend on military

Originally posted by Starwars51
Nope. An Army Ranger in Iraq makes no more money than a truck driver of the same rank and time in service. When you also look at flight pay and TDY pay (temporary duty, basically travel pay) the highest paid enlisted people (of the same rank) are aircrew (loadmasters, airborne comm, pararescue). The highest paid line officers are either pilots or Navy people serving on submarines. Medical officers get special bonuses as well. Also, depending on their career field, enlisted people can get selctive re-enlistment bonuses - sometimes these are over $30,000 for a 4 year re-enlistment.

My mate was thinking about going over to the US and serving there as a ranger instead of serving here is my mates ranger idea...

Originally posted by devilwasp

So you keep 12 battlefleets to save people from a tsunami?
No there is no threat to national security big enough to require the use of 12 battlefleets.

As I have already shown, the 12 CBGs are there so that we may have a rotation, thus we can have some on patrole while the others are being maintianed. That leaves 6 in the Atlanti, 6 in the Pacific. Say 2 out of each six are in port, thats 4 in each ocean. That allows the US to respond to something with or 2 and still be able to respond to another event. Get it yet?

Question , how many ships did the US send?

I don't know - I know 2 carriers were there. And yes, they are the ones giving most of the clean water and medical suplies. Without them thousands more would have dies.

No the best protection is haveing no enemies, why do you think canada has never been attacked?

Gimme a break. There is no country that has no enemies. Even Canada would have been attacked in WWII had Germany been able to reach them. That is just a bad comment. Especially since it is not always up to you who is your enemy.

Still the military seems to be the main concern of every polition and pres, why?

Hmmmmm, lets see. We went from saving Europe from Germany in WWII, to saving Europe from Russia in the cold war, to saving Kuwait right after the cold war, to having airplanes flown into the twin towers and pentagon on live TV.


Still though, it is not the main concern of every politician and president - that is just an uninformed comment. Clinton wasn not concerned with the military, and niether was Bush 41. Reagan was only into the military in his first term so that he could tople the Soviet Union WITHOUT actually using it.

Yeah, but you already have supposedly better fighters , F18,F-15E, ETC.
I am questioning the crazy ammount of money spent on the military and not on other things.

The F-15 is no longer the best air superiority fighter in the world. The regular F-18 is not even close, and the super hornet is a naval aircraft that does not fit with USAF air uperirity tactics.

Listen, Europe has the Typhoon, Russia has their Su series, the US has the Raptor. It happens to be a lot better then anything else, and also costs a lot more because of this. It has things like stealth that no one else has in part because of the cost to do so.

As for why we don't spend the money else where, is that we already spend trillions of dollars else where. It is just proportianal.

Yet luxomburg is richer yet they dont spend as much on military...

You must be kidding. The US is the richest nation (and thus richest government) in the world, by far and it's not even close. The US makes up about 20% of the worlds total economy. We spend a % of our total budget on the military. This % is comparable with other world powers, it's just that 10% of the US budget is more then 100% of just about every one elses budget.

That's diffrent you dont have a country recently in economic colapse or just had a major world war.

And no one thought it would happen then either. # DOES happen. Personally, I am glad I live in a country that no one would dare mess around with because we are so strong.

That is a fine reason to defend someone, but didnt the US state it had a million plus army?

There is a difference - we have about a 2 million man military. Korea has a million man ARMY - as in soldiers. Ours includes everyone, such as cooks, mechanics, paper pushers, etc.

That is just paranio and fear working there.

Then why do they keep threatening Taiwan? Why have they not done so? Clearly, the only thing that stops them from doing so is the US. And then what would stop them from getting greedy? Without the US, the only country that could put up a fight against them is Russia.

Any country that has nukes and over 100 million trained soldiers is a threat.

Russia, while less of a threat then before, still has a military capable of posing a threat
Yet what would they gain out of a conflict?
Nothing infact they would hurt themselves more.

Yes, they would hurt themselves - BECAUSE WE HAVE A BETTER MILITARY! Without that, they would not be hurting themselves as much - would they?

Thats almost as crazy as our old two power idea.

Whats so crazy about it? We did it in WWII, We were in Korea and yet had an army in Europe covering you arse, we were in Vietnam and still covered your arse...It's not crazy - it's smart and prudent. It's what every military would plan to do if they could.

Really, funny as i remember there are lots of countries with fine militaries in the UN willing to fight if needed.

Indeed there are. But none of them have the ability to do what the US can do. Face it, if there is ever a large scale military operation that the UN thinks needs an intervention, it is going to be the US. No one else has the ability to get the troops and the fire power to an area of conflict other then the US.

Thats not to say man for man there aren't militaries that are as good, there just aren't any with our ability that also have the man power. The UK has a very well trained military, but lack numbers. China has the numbers, but their training and equipment are sub par.

What about those that cant benifit from the military?
What about those that DONT want to join the services?
The fact is the US is still military based culture and this seems crazy to me.


Too bad. I am one of those. I can't pass a physical. I tried to join, wanted to join but couldn't join. Yu move on and find something else. Besides - I can't benifit from a lot of other government programs. They all have people they will help and even those they will hurt. Personally, I pay for everyones kids to go to school - but I don't have any kids. How am I benifiting?

Too bad. Thats your choice. I didn't want to take advantage of a lot of other government programs, thats everyones choice.

You have no idea about our culture. There are 2 million people in the military out of 300 million. Get a clue - the majority of the people over here couldn't tell the difference between a B-1 bomber and an M-1 tank.

I am worried about WTF your military does!
It affects me because my country is your ally and what you do we must support!
Your country places too much power in one mans hands.

What does WHAT our military does have to do with HOW MUCH is spent on it?

And by the way, we place the same amount of power in our president as you do with your prime minister.

Our president can not declare war without congress, just as yur PM can not without parliment.

Basically what you said iis completely inaccurate. You fail to understand that Bush got backing from everyone else before he went in.

Originally posted by Dallas
I thought it was 450 Billion with 100 Billion going to Black Projects.
Dallas

"Basic" budget of DoD is ~400 Billion. (2005, increase for 2006 is planned to be 20 billion)
Then there are additional money's for Dubya's oil wars/donations for poor hands of military industrial complex/big money.
And I don't doubt they get more for black budget projects.

Originally posted by devilwasp
But when you start makeing comments on the muslings like that in public you become arogant and produces a racist auroa around you, in my eyes.

You're right devilwasp... or actually there's no need to read any posts, just reading signature and title under name is enough to tell that.

Basically those are entirely same "mantras" Hitler used... We are gods chosen people, better than others (have the right to decide what is right) bla bla bla...


"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider godfearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
-Aristotle, "Politics"

"Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."
-Arthur Shopenhauer

"Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horribly unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches.... The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people - Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."
-Dagobert Runes

"Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy."
-George Bernard Shaw

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As I have already shown, the 12 CBGs are there so that we may have a rotation, thus we can have some on patrole while the others are being maintianed. That leaves 6 in the Atlanti, 6 in the Pacific. Say 2 out of each six are in port, thats 4 in each ocean. That allows the US to respond to something with or 2 and still be able to respond to another event. Get it yet?

Thats 2 battle fleets per ocean, who exsactly is going to be fighting 2 battle fleets aka over 120 planes?

Gimme a break. There is no country that has no enemies. Even Canada would have been attacked in WWII had Germany been able to reach them. That is just a bad comment. Especially since it is not always up to you who is your enemy.

We are talking now , not then.
Take military alliances into account when you think there as well.

Hmmmmm, lets see. We went from saving Europe from Germany in WWII, to saving Europe from Russia in the cold war, to saving Kuwait right after the cold war, to having airplanes flown into the twin towers and pentagon on live TV.

You helped us , not save but help.
Yet again help, what is with you americans thinking you saved the world over 5 or 6 times!
The militay didnt stop those planes, nothing could of.
The intel needed money not some new fighter plane.

Still though, it is not the main concern of every politician and president - that is just an uninformed comment. Clinton wasn not concerned with the military, and niether was Bush 41. Reagan was only into the military in his first term so that he could tople the Soviet Union WITHOUT actually using it.

Seems like it to me, the entire US election ads where all about military.
off topic question, why the hell do you guys need sooooooo many adverts! I missed my faveroute family guy cause there was too many adverts...

The F-15 is no longer the best air superiority fighter in the world. The regular F-18 is not even close, and the super hornet is a naval aircraft that does not fit with USAF air uperirity tactics.

The F-15 E was supposed to be the best wasnt it?
Upgraded stuff?

Listen, Europe has the Typhoon, Russia has their Su series, the US has the Raptor. It happens to be a lot better then anything else, and also costs a lot more because of this. It has things like stealth that no one else has in part because of the cost to do so.

As for why we don't spend the money else where, is that we already spend trillions of dollars else where. It is just proportianal.

Yeah but it doesnt show, you still see large amounts of unemployed wokers.

You must be kidding. The US is the richest nation (and thus richest government) in the world, by far and it's not even close. The US makes up about 20% of the worlds total economy. We spend a % of our total budget on the military. This % is comparable with other world powers, it's just that 10% of the US budget is more then 100% of just about every one elses budget.

Really, so can you show me where it says america is the richest in the world?

And no one thought it would happen then either. # DOES happen. Personally, I am glad I live in a country that no one would dare mess around with because we are so strong.

Yes # DOES happen but when does that require a total of 240 fighters planes to deal with?

Is it right to live in a country which everyone fears?
Do americans like spreading fear?

There is a difference - we have about a 2 million man military. Korea has a million man ARMY - as in soldiers. Ours includes everyone, such as cooks, mechanics, paper pushers, etc.

Yeah, but how effective is the large force?

Then why do they keep threatening Taiwan?

They claim it as one of thiers since many people there are chinese decendants.

Why have they not done so? Clearly, the only thing that stops them from doing so is the US. And then what would stop them from getting greedy? Without the US, the only country that could put up a fight against them is Russia.

Why does the US need to be involved there though?
Its not got anything to do with america!

Any country that has nukes and over 100 million trained soldiers is a threat.

That is paranio, so you think we should treat america as a threat?
Useing that logic after all it would seem logical.

Yes, they would hurt themselves - BECAUSE WE HAVE A BETTER MILITARY! Without that, they would not be hurting themselves as much - would they?

What kind of man power loss are they going to feel going after the US hell even the US citizens alone would cause serios harm, never mind the US army.
Also not mentioning the economic and political problems.

Whats so crazy about it? We did it in WWII, We were in Korea and yet had an army in Europe covering you arse,

Really, so when we were in koera and in europe we were doing what?
Eating crumpets and drinking tea?

we were in Vietnam and still covered your arse...It's not crazy - it's smart and prudent. It's what every military would plan to do if they could.

No its what fear does, it makes you see a threat if its there or not.
What proof is there that the russians would have gone west?
What proof is there that they could take europe?

Indeed there are. But none of them have the ability to do what the US can do. Face it, if there is ever a large scale military operation that the UN thinks needs an intervention, it is going to be the US. No one else has the ability to get the troops and the fire power to an area of conflict other then the US.

I would say we could get the troops there fine, we have many ships, planes, trains and just about every kind of transport availble.

Thats not to say man for man there aren't militaries that are as good, there just aren't any with our ability that also have the man power. The UK has a very well trained military, but lack numbers. China has the numbers, but their training and equipment are sub par.

Numbers only mean so much, as your and my forces in korea found, both out numbered yet still effective.

Too bad. I am one of those. I can't pass a physical. I tried to join, wanted to join but couldn't join. Yu move on and find something else. Besides - I can't benifit from a lot of other government programs. They all have people they will help and even those they will hurt. Personally, I pay for everyones kids to go to school - but I don't have any kids. How am I benifiting?

No one benifits in a military based culture unless they can join the military.
Simple.

Too bad. Thats your choice. I didn't want to take advantage of a lot of other government programs, thats everyones choice.

That is your choice but as I said what happens when you dont or cant join the military yet have nothing else you can do?
Become a bum or unemployed.

You have no idea about our culture. There are 2 million people in the military out of 300 million. Get a clue - the majority of the people over here couldn't tell the difference between a B-1 bomber and an M-1 tank.

Yeah, thats why people need to be educated, with money from the military then you can give those people education.

What does WHAT our military does have to do with HOW MUCH is spent on it?

What you spend defines what you can do.
You spend money on a new missile , you have new missile capability.

And by the way, we place the same amount of power in our president as you do with your prime minister.

Our president can not declare war without congress, just as yur PM can not without parliment.

That is not what I am on about, your pres picks his cabinet.
So he only picks people that will support his views, in our one the cabinet is picked from other parties.
Also our government becomes a coalition government once war is established.

Basically what you said iis completely inaccurate. You fail to understand that Bush got backing from everyone else before he went in.

Yes he did, i know this.
This is not what I am talking about...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thats 2 battle fleets per ocean, who exsactly is going to be fighting 2 battle fleets aka over 120 planes?

3 were used in Iraq. If we eeded 3 in Iraq, I think that 12 total is not that big of a reach.

We are talking now , not then.
Take military alliances into account when you think there as well.

It is still aplicable. You can not always choose to not have enemies, sometimes they choose you.
Sorry, but I want my nation to not have to depend on military alliances. You never know when a supposed ally won't do their part (no jab at you or any other country - it is just something that has been repeated through out history)

You helped us , not save but help.

Without US industrial backing you would be speaking German. Never mind our military involvement.

Yet again help, what is with you americans thinking you saved the world over 5 or 6 times!

Sorry - Russia wasn't scared of Europe. They were scared of the US. If it weren't for the US Russia would have rolled their thousands of tanks right through Europe.

The militay didnt stop those planes, nothing could of.

Agreed - but the military allowed us to respond in any manner we saw fit.

The intel needed money not some new fighter plane.

LOL! Thats what you Euros don't get. Everything in the US is well funded. Our intel gets hundred billion dollar budgets too. he difference is money is less apt to fix intel problems as it is military ones.

Seems like it to me, the entire US election ads where all about military.
off topic question, why the hell do you guys need sooooooo many adverts! I missed my faveroute family guy cause there was too many adverts...

They were about the military because WE ARE AT WAR

The F-15 E was supposed to be the best wasnt it?
Upgraded stuff?

Yes - it WAS. In the 80's nothing could touch it. In the early 90's Russia came out with slightly better aircraft. Now the Typhoon is clearly better, as are the modernized Sukhoi's. The F/A-22 is the aircraft we have been designing for 10 years (just like you guys did with the Typhoon) as our next generation fighter. The fact is our F-15 is a 30 year old design. Imagine taking a race car from 1975 up against an Enzo or Carrera GT. The technology is too great to simply 'upgrade'.

It would cost more to design a new aircraft that would cost less then to just buy the same number of better aircraft.

Yeah but it doesnt show, you still see large amounts of unemployed wokers.

Compare the US to Europe. You will find that it is comparable.

Really, so can you show me where it says america is the richest in the world?

No - you can look that up on your own if you don't know it. he UTS has a 12 TRILLION dollar economy and ranks second or third (depending on who you ask) in purchasing power per person. With a population of 300 million (which ranks third in the world) it is pretty easy to figure out which nations government has the most money to spend.

Yes # DOES happen but when does that require a total of 240 fighters planes to deal with?

Iraq needed MORE then that number. Imagine an enemy that actually put up a fight.

Is it right to live in a country which everyone fears?
Do americans like spreading fear?

It's not right or wrong. The only people that need fear the US are those who would do us harm.

Yeah, but how effective is the large force?

Ours is very effective. Theirs is effective at what they would want to do, which would be to over run South Korea.

They claim it as one of thiers since many people there are chinese decendants.

Hmmm, well I guess that settles is then doesn't it. Ohh - that peacefull country China. BTW, I know a lot of American decedents in other countries - I guess we can claim them right? And I guess you can claim the US since there are a lot of Brittish here. Sorry, we will be there to protect Taiwan and her independence from a comunist invader if it comes to it.

Why does the US need to be involved there though?
Its not got anything to do with america!

But it does. She is our trading partner and is our ally. That makes it our buisness.

That is paranio, so you think we should treat america as a threat?
Useing that logic after all it would seem logical.

China isn't your ally, the US is. Besides, we have no where NEAR 100 million soldiers trained. That would be 1/3 od our population.

What kind of man power loss are they going to feel going after the US hell even the US citizens alone would cause serios harm, never mind the US army.
Also not mentioning the economic and political problems.

Well then you better call up China and tell them to dissarm. And BTW - when was the last time China cared about killing it's citizens?

Really, so when we were in koera and in europe we were doing what?
Eating crumpets and drinking tea?

No - YOU WERE DOING THE SAME THING. Get it yet???

No its what fear does, it makes you see a threat if its there or not.
What proof is there that the russians would have gone west?
What proof is there that they could take europe?

I believe you should brush up on your cold war history. Russia had tens of thousands of tanks MASSED in Eastern Europe to attack western Europe. They had plans, and even had plans to (through covert actions) get the US to do leave NATO so that Russia might invade Europe.

The proof that they could take Europe? More tanks, more men, more planes, more ships, more subs...They simply had you outgunned without the US. They had aout 10,000 nukes - all of Europe had less then 1,000. You guys didn't stand a chance headds up.

I would say we could get the troops there fine, we have many ships, planes, trains and just about every kind of transport availble.

Like I said, you have very good soldiers, but not enough of them.

Numbers only mean so much, as your and my forces in korea found, both out numbered yet still effective.

And like I said - in a LARGE SCALE....

i wasn't talking about a small job. If there is a large one, it will be the US doing the majority of it.

No one benifits in a military based culture unless they can join the military.
Simple.
That is your choice but as I said what happens when you dont or cant join the military yet have nothing else you can do?
Become a bum or unemployed.

Sure you can. Get a job at a company that makes weapons, trucks, ships, planes, provides catering services, insurance, etc etc etc...

Yeah, thats why people need to be educated, with money from the military then you can give those people education.

Sorry - our education system is fine. We have the best higher educational system in the world, bar none.

That is not what I am on about, your pres picks his cabinet.
So he only picks people that will support his views, in our one the cabinet is picked from other parties.
Also our government becomes a coalition government once war is established.

The cab does not contain any other powers besides those of the president. Our system is fine.

I'm sorry if you would like OUR country to spend OUR money differently - unfortunatly (for you) it isn't going to happen. I don't think it is worth discussing any further, let me just say that the money that might be taken away from the military would not be spent better elsewhere.

Our GDP is 10 Trillion, our military budget is 420 Billion. Thats 4% of our GDP to military which is a small sum. The increase of military budget is consistent with our increasing GDP. As our GDP increases our military budget increases, but the percentage remains the same, some of you people fail to grasp that.

devilwasp - I'm glad you think me a racst its nice to see you can not differentiate between several dfferent types of social grouping.
ET - same to you lutefisk

Just so you know dribblewasp, the US has lower unemployment than anywhere in the EU. n addition despite having a 50% smaller population than the EU its GDP has just now matchsed ours. The only country in the EU which has a higher Per person GDP than the satate of alabama, which is one of our poorest states, is luxembourg. In other words the state of Alabama has a bigger economy than the UK.
BTW lutefisk Finland has a smaller perperson gdp than all 50 US states.
Heres a nice little report written by Dr Fredrik Bergström, President of the Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr Robert Gidehag, until recently Chief Economist of the same institute and now President of the Swedish Taxpayer's Association.
www.timbro.com...
Thats why we have such a large militry sons because we dont come from a tny little micro-nation that wouldn't even qualfy as a state here in the US.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
3 were used in Iraq. If we eeded 3 in Iraq, I think that 12 total is not that big of a reach.

Really, three battle groups, so about 30 warships from the US alone?

It is still aplicable. You can not always choose to not have enemies, sometimes they choose you.
Sorry, but I want my nation to not have to depend on military alliances. You never know when a supposed ally won't do their part (no jab at you or any other country - it is just something that has been repeated through out history)

Yes that's true but picking the right allies also stops those enemies from hurting you.
Wha?
What alliance has been broken with your country?

Without US industrial backing you would be speaking German. Never mind our military involvement.

Your industrial backing was purely out of the advantage to the producers it in no way reflected the way the american public thought.
We would have survived with it because the germans lost the air war and operation sea lion would have failed.

Sorry - Russia wasn't scared of Europe. They were scared of the US. If it weren't for the US Russia would have rolled their thousands of tanks right through Europe.

Yeah after WW2 sure but at the cold wars hieght they would have been stoped by europe, we are not defenseless you know.

Agreed - but the military allowed us to respond in any manner we saw fit.

Yeah, with a smaller force than the NYPD.
Come on , a smaller force wouldnt have made a diffrence in afgahnistan.

LOL! Thats what you Euros don't get. Everything in the US is well funded. Our intel gets hundred billion dollar budgets too. he difference is money is less apt to fix intel problems as it is military ones.

Doesnt seem like it, we see many americans not haveing the same quality of life we have here
Well you can admit that if more money was poured into intel it might have been averted from happening.

They were about the military because WE ARE AT WAR

.....I dont remember there being a war in between afgahnistan and iraq....did i miss one?

Yes - it WAS. In the 80's nothing could touch it. In the early 90's Russia came out with slightly better aircraft. Now the Typhoon is clearly better, as are the modernized Sukhoi's. The F/A-22 is the aircraft we have been designing for 10 years (just like you guys did with the Typhoon) as our next generation fighter. The fact is our F-15 is a 30 year old design. Imagine taking a race car from 1975 up against an Enzo or Carrera GT. The technology is too great to simply 'upgrade'.

No I'm not meaning the bog standard F-15 I mean the latest one, the one with all the brand new upgrades.
I can understand building the F22 but you might have designed a less costly fighter.

It would cost more to design a new aircraft that would cost less then to just buy the same number of better aircraft.

Not really, a new cheap fighter jsut needs bits from the F22 and the JSF.

Compare the US to Europe. You will find that it is comparable.

Not really.

No - you can look that up on your own if you don't know it. he UTS has a 12 TRILLION dollar economy and ranks second or third (depending on who you ask) in purchasing power per person. With a population of 300 million (which ranks third in the world) it is pretty easy to figure out which nations government has the most money to spend.
[/qutoe]
The US also has a several trillion debt.

Iraq needed MORE then that number. Imagine an enemy that actually put up a fight.

What enemy though?
Its all fair game to "imagine" an enemy but what enemy exists?

It's not right or wrong. The only people that need fear the US are those who would do us harm.

Thats easy enough to say but how do you exsplain it to someone who fears your country.

Ours is very effective. Theirs is effective at what they would want to do, which would be to over run South Korea.

A smaller meduim sized extremly well trained army more than makes up for numbers.

Hmmm, well I guess that settles is then doesn't it. Ohh - that peacefull country China. BTW, I know a lot of American decedents in other countries - I guess we can claim them right? And I guess you can claim the US since there are a lot of Brittish here. Sorry, we will be there to protect Taiwan and her independence from a comunist invader if it comes to it.

Well taiwan is ALREADY chinese.
Thats decendants, but the ACTUAL people there are chinese.
Yeah i guess we could.
Why though, its not the US's fight.

But it does. She is our trading partner and is our ally. That makes it our buisness.

So, if british islands are invaded, since we are a big ally shouldnt you jump in and help us....oh wait no US carrier fleet for us...

China isn't your ally, the US is. Besides, we have no where NEAR 100 million soldiers trained. That would be 1/3 od our population.

As you said even allies cant be trusted, anyone with nukes is a threat.
Unless your makeing exceptions...

Well then you better call up China and tell them to dissarm. And BTW - when was the last time China cared about killing it's citizens?

Is russia now china?
No
China is "cominust" (really a dictator ship) so ofcourse it doesnt care, russia is diffrent they are a democracy and are already in a risky situation ATMO

No - YOU WERE DOING THE SAME THING. Get it yet???

Well stop makeing comments like "the US saves the world single handly AGAIN!"

I believe you should brush up on your cold war history. Russia had tens of thousands of tanks MASSED in Eastern Europe to attack western Europe. They had plans, and even had plans to (through covert actions) get the US to do leave NATO so that Russia might invade Europe.

Yeah and the US had plans to use terrorists to hurt the russians, that they put into action.
Both sides had plans.

The proof that they could take Europe? More tanks, more men, more planes, more ships, more subs...They simply had you outgunned without the US. They had aout 10,000 nukes - all of Europe had less then 1,000. You guys didn't stand a chance headds up.

10,000 or 1,000 nukes means bugger all, one nuke screws it all.
They had a large undertrained, under fed, under armed and under fed army, navy and airforce.
WE WOULD HAVE STOPPED THEM.

Like I said, you have very good soldiers, but not enough of them.

Enough for what?
To go around the world screwing every one over?
No we dont need that and nethier do you, you need a force to defend your borders and intrests so a small force is needded.

And like I said - in a LARGE SCALE....

In a large scale it still matters about training and exsperience.
One well trained squad can hold off 10 more under trained squads.

i wasn't talking about a small job. If there is a large one, it will be the US doing the majority of it.

Thats cause you have more troops and as I said a massive force isnt really needed.

Sure you can. Get a job at a company that makes weapons, trucks, ships, planes, provides catering services, insurance, etc etc etc...

Yeah and you get stuck with a crappy job and a crappy life with no chance of getting out of it.

Sorry - our education system is fine. We have the best higher educational system in the world, bar none.

Really, thats why your people cant tell you how many states are in canada, read carefully what i said.

The cab does not contain any other powers besides those of the president. Our system is fine.

If he wants to put an act through he picks people that support that act not people opposed to it.

I'm sorry if you would like OUR country to spend OUR money differently - unfortunatly (for you) it isn't going to happen. I don't think it is worth discussing any further, let me just say that the money that might be taken away from the military would not be spent better elsewhere.

Thats your opinion, nothing more.

Originally posted by mwm1331
devilwasp - I'm glad you think me a racst its nice to see you can not differentiate between several dfferent types of social grouping.

What social group do you define a person who hates another race and makes comments like the one in your sig out in public?
A racist.
I go by what I see.

Just so you know dribblewasp, the US has lower unemployment than anywhere in the EU. n addition despite having a 50% smaller population than the EU its GDP has just now matchsed ours. The only country in the EU which has a higher Per person GDP than the satate of alabama, which is one of our poorest states, is luxembourg. In other words the state of Alabama has a bigger economy than the UK.

Thanks for the personal insults, isnt that banned here?
We have twice the size in population ofcourse we are going to have a larger ammount of unemloyment, not to add to the fact the massive ammount of forign imports we use from poorer countries.
Alabalma probably does have a higher economy than us, you think I care?
Be richer than us.
Also GDP doesnt define how rich your country is.

Are you getting anoyed that other countries dont like your attitude?

[edit on 10-2-2005 by devilwasp]

Devilwasp - Have you ever been to America? How do you know what our quality of life is?
1 well trained unit can take on 10 poorly trained? Perhaps in a good defensive positon similar to when the Athenian held of "the immortals" But in open field combat? No.
Read Sun Tzu and what he says about numerical superiorty.
If you are so sue that europe culd have stopped a soviet invasion by itself then why did All of the commanders of NATO during the cold war say the US presence was vital to protecting europe?
Are you saying your knowledge of the Military arts are greater than the top US and European generals?

Originally posted by mwm1331
Devilwasp - Have you ever been to America?

Many times...

How do you know what our quality of life is?

I seen it with my eyes.
I smelt it, touched and heard it.

1 well trained unit can take on 10 poorly trained?

I would say so, what do poorly trained troops know about tactics?

Perhaps in a good defensive positon similar to when the Athenian held of "the immortals" But in open field combat? No.

There is no such thing as , open field combat.
Terrain is diffrent and the one who exsploits it will have an advantage.

Read Sun Tzu and what he says about numerical superiorty.

Yeah I have, and read about what he says about tactics, haveing a large undertrained and unexerprienced army doesnt wrk.

If you are so sue that europe culd have stopped a soviet invasion by itself then why did All of the commanders of NATO during the cold war say the US presence was vital to protecting europe?

Because they wanted over kill, in the military most comanders want over kill, and to make sure that they would not lose.

Are you saying your knowledge of the Military arts are greater than the top US and European generals?

No in no way am I saying that, what I am saying is that I have more intel on the situation since I have sources from both sides, where as the US didnt have all the numbers nor all the intel it wantded.

Well devilwasp I too have traveled throghout europe and by my standards your quality of life sucks.
What you in the UK call a "house" we call a condo
While can go to my doctor and have lasik surgery today you have to apply and hope for approval.
I get to choose my doctor, surgeon etc. You get yours assgned.
I can send my children to public, private, home, catholic, baptist, jewish ,or any other form of school. I have a very wide choice of educatonal options for my children you have much less.
I get to keep 75% of what I make and I am n the top income tax brackett, oh yeah and no state tax in my home state.
Does your government even let you keep 50% of what you make?
I dont know anyone too poor to have a car, color tv, dvd player, etc.
Standard of life is relative, I dont value the same things you do, and to be quite frank though lve n europe there is no way in hell I wll ever call it home. And I thank god everyday that I am an amercan and dont have to pay any taxes to your greedy theving governments other than VAT.
BTW on top of all the other taxes you people pay 17-21% on all purchases? You people are nuts.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well devilwasp I too have traveled throghout europe and by my standards your quality of life sucks.

Really, I look around and i think its ok.

What you in the UK call a "house" we call a condo

What?
Where did you vist? A holiday camp?

While can go to my doctor and have lasik surgery today you have to apply and hope for approval.

Buuuuh?
Not acording to a nurse who worked for 16 yearrs in the NHS.
Now tell me where did you get that pile dog doo doo.

I get to choose my doctor, surgeon etc.

Really, same with me! Funny that ITS THE SAME QUALITY HERE!

I can send my children to public, private, home, catholic, baptist, jewish ,or any other form of school. I have a very wide choice of educatonal options for my children you have much less.

Umm dude so can I.
Hell my children (When i have them or if i have them) can go to atleast 3 diffrent schools in a one mile radius from my present house, thats not includeing the catholic schools and such.
And provided i live in a small town.

Does your government even let you keep 50% of what you make?

Yes, we keep most of what we make and hell the stuff we give to the gov goes to makeing our country strong, do YOU have that kind of a comitment to your country?.....

I dont know anyone too poor to have a car, color tv, dvd player, etc.

I do, and those that are spend thier money wisely or have low paid jobs.

Standard of life is relative, I dont value the same things you do, and to be quite frank though lve n europe there is no way in hell I wll ever call it home. And I thank god everyday that I am an amercan and dont have to pay any taxes to your greedy theving governments other than VAT.

We quite frankly dont want you to call it home since you seem to have a complete lack of manours to your host.
I thank to god my country gives a crap about my health and my kids education.
What we pay is all justified, its for the better comunity and its not designed to look out just for you.

BTW on top of all the other taxes you people pay 17-21% on all purchases? You people are nuts.

So?
Whats wrong with 17-21% , we have good paid jobs, its easier than sitting haveing a 6% tax on it that changes every week.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes that's true but picking the right allies also stops those enemies from hurting you.
Wha?
What alliance has been broken with your country?

You do understand that right now the "right ally to pick" is the US don't you? Hmmm - why is that? Could it be because our military can crush just about everyone elses.?

Let's see here...France pulled out of NATO now didn't they - during the cold war no less. But beyond that, just because it HASN'T happened does not mean it WON'T happen.

Yeah after WW2 sure but at the cold wars hieght they would have been stoped by europe, we are not defenseless you know.

No - up untill the soviet union collapsed, Europe had no chance one on one with the USSR. None. Russia had many times the military power.

Doesnt seem like it, we see many americans not haveing the same quality of life we have here
Well you can admit that if more money was poured into intel it might have been averted from happening.

LOL! The US has a HIGHER standard of living then the EU! Not lower. Get your facts in order. Even our poverty level is higher then yours.

.....I dont remember there being a war in between afgahnistan and iraq....did i miss one?

Really? So I guess Iraq and Afganhnistan suddenly were just put on hold for the ellections?

Get real dude - we were still at war.

No I'm not meaning the bog standard F-15 I mean the latest one, the one with all the brand new upgrades.
I can understand building the F22 but you might have designed a less costly fighter.

No - the F-15 is is an inferior airframe. It may have state of the art computers and radar but the actual aircraft is outdated - just like if you drive a restord car it is still an old car.

As for the Raptor, it was designed with OUR safety in mind - and by OUR i ean yours and mine. It was designe to take on the soviet union. And besides, the cost of the plane is only high becuse the orders for them have gone from an original 700+ to 160. If we got the original amount, they wouldn't be that expensive - but we have to appease people like yourself who want our military to be smaller.

Not really, a new cheap fighter jsut needs bits from the F22 and the JSF.

No - that is completely untrue. You can't just slap together pieces from different aircraft. It just doesn't work that way. It would cost BILLIONS more to design a new fighter, and we already have 2 new ones which are good.

Not really.

Your right - the US has HIGHER employment rates and a higher per person income. Europe has a ways to go to catch up to the US.

The US also has a several trillion debt.

Your point? It is not an unmanageable debt in anyway.

What enemy though?

Really - stop it with this. I have already pointed out North Korea, Iran, and China as potential enemies.

A smaller meduim sized extremly well trained army more than makes up for numbers.

No it does not. That is simply untrue. The mor soldiers you have, the better.

Well taiwan is ALREADY chinese.
Thats decendants, but the ACTUAL people there are chinese.
Yeah i guess we could.
Why though, its not the US's fight.

No it isn't. It doesn't want any part of China.
So - the ACTUAL people from Australia and the US are largely Brittish and we don't want any part of you.
We defend Taiwan because it is mutually benficial. Defending Europe from Russia wasn't really our fight either - but you guys were our ally just as taiwan is.

So, if british islands are invaded, since we are a big ally shouldnt you jump in and help us....oh wait no US carrier fleet for us...

Please tell me when one of your islands were invaded and you needed US help? Is this a joke?

As you said even allies cant be trusted, anyone with nukes is a threat.
Unless your makeing exceptions...

Which is why you maintain your own military with a nuclear deterence.
We are your best ally, but I hardly expect the UK to get rid of it's military because of it.

Well stop makeing comments like "the US saves the world single handly AGAIN!"

Sorry - the facts are facts. The US was the one resposable for protecting Europe from the USSR. The US was the one that contributed most towards Kuwait. Other nations helped, yes, but they would have failed without the US, where as the US would have been able to do it with no help.

Yeah and the US had plans to use terrorists to hurt the russians, that they put into action.
Both sides had plans.

Yeah - so stop saying there were none.

10,000 or 1,000 nukes means bugger all, one nuke screws it all.
They had a large undertrained, under fed, under armed and under fed army, navy and airforce.
WE WOULD HAVE STOPPED THEM.

You must be kidding! Russia had more weapons then the US did! Russia had no such problem feeding it's army - that is a joe. And as for training, the Russians may not have been trained to our levels, but they were not UNDERtrained.

BTW - their Navy had the largest SSBNs (still does) and their airforce had some of the best planes in the world. You make them out to be weak. FOr much of the cold war, they had a better military then the US, so stop this. Russia would have beaten you like a red headed step child.

Enough for what?
To go around the world screwing every one over?
No we dont need that and nethier do you, you need a force to defend your borders and intrests so a small force is needded.

You can have your small force - I'll take the giant technologically advanced dominate military thank you.

In a large scale it still matters about training and exsperience.
One well trained squad can hold off 10 more under trained squads.

We have the best of both worlds. We have thousands of well trained well equiped highly experienced troops.

Thats cause you have more troops and as I said a massive force isnt really needed.

Despite what you think, large amounts of soldiers are required for many military missions.

Yeah and you get stuck with a crappy job and a crappy life with no chance of getting out of it.

LOL! Let me clue you in here. An engineer that works for companies like Lockheed-martin makes a grat living. A manager that works on military hardware makes just as much as a civilian product - and often more. You are simply uninformed here.

O.k, don't be angry at me...
I think that all wars are "organized" even WWII, that everything was planned...It's a big agenda, cover-ups and purpose of corporations and control over population.
We live in a big game and we all think that it's the real deal....
We should not even jump in this game, we have to be independant of ourselves.
I don't know how to explain that, but military is total BS and any knid of war will never do good. America wants to be the savior of everything (that is what they want american population to think) but in the real way, that is not the case! Everything is well planned and thinked years before it happens...we should not waste energies on fighting that

There people dying of hunger, sickness everywhere around the world that cause much more death than wars or a terrorist attack! Do they have the right to be saved? Could the military spend money of war on those people instead? No, because they don't have anything that the government can benefit of....

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You do understand that right now the "right ally to pick" is the US don't you? Hmmm - why is that? Could it be because our military can crush just about everyone elses.?
[/qutoe]
Is this is what we are talking about?

Let's see here...France pulled out of NATO now didn't they - during the cold war no less. But beyond that, just because it HASN'T happened does not mean it WON'T happen.

If you live with that then you will have no peace or allies because you fear everyone will betray you.
Now the NATO thing is double edged you wont support them and they wont support you, what I am on about is the kind of alliance between the UK and US.

No - up untill the soviet union collapsed, Europe had no chance one on one with the USSR. None. Russia had many times the military power.

Yeah, all over russia not just in one sector.

LOL! The US has a HIGHER standard of living then the EU! Not lower. Get your facts in order. Even our poverty level is higher then yours.

So thats why you live in a country with hunderds of getos?

Really? So I guess Iraq and Afganhnistan suddenly were just put on hold for the ellections?

So even when the US pres says , "the war is over" that means we are not over?
No YOU get real the fact is your not at war simply engaded in ocupation nothing else. That is not a war.

No - the F-15 is is an inferior airframe. It may have state of the art computers and radar but the actual aircraft is outdated - just like if you drive a restord car it is still an old car.

Hmm fair do's.

As for the Raptor, it was designed with OUR safety in mind - and by OUR i ean yours and mine. It was designe to take on the soviet union. And besides, the cost of the plane is only high becuse the orders for them have gone from an original 700+ to 160. If we got the original amount, they wouldn't be that expensive - but we have to appease people like yourself who want our military to be smaller.

Yeah was designed to fight a threat back in the days when it existed. Does that threat exist today?

No - that is completely untrue. You can't just slap together pieces from different aircraft. It just doesn't work that way. It would cost BILLIONS more to design a new fighter, and we already have 2 new ones which are good.

The US has billions to spare it costs BILLIONs to design the F-22 anyhow

Your right - the US has HIGHER employment rates and a higher per person income. Europe has a ways to go to catch up to the US.

Thats cause your people work loger hours but are less productive, so a larger force is needed.

Your point? It is not an unmanageable debt in anyway.

I am afraid it is.

Really - stop it with this. I have already pointed out North Korea, Iran, and China as potential enemies.
[/qutoe]
What a country with a brown water navy, and a country which has missiles that "could" hit the USA.

No it does not. That is simply untrue. The mor soldiers you have, the better.
[/qutoe]
Russia thought like that, didnt really work in many of thier conflicts did it?

No it isn't. It doesn't want any part of China.

Most of the population want status quo the seperatists and unionists are out voted.

So - the ACTUAL people from Australia and the US are largely Brittish and we don't want any part of you.

No you fought for your independance and australia got its freedom, we didnt stop it.

We defend Taiwan because it is mutually benficial. Defending Europe from Russia wasn't really our fight either - but you guys were our ally just as taiwan is.

It wasnt really a "your our ally" situation in the cold war, it was benifitioal strategically for the US to stop russia from gainging any country.
You defend taiwan to spite the chinese and to give you a strikeing base.

Please tell me when one of your islands were invaded and you needed US help? Is this a joke?

Falklands?

Which is why you maintain your own military with a nuclear deterence.

No, you keep your nuclear deterence for you enemies NOT YOUR ALLIES!

We are your best ally, but I hardly expect the UK to get rid of it's military because of it.

Who is talking about getting rid of the military, and we might as well get rid of the military if these budget cuts get any worse.
You might think it sounds stupid that i am arugeing for cuts but complaining about them but there is logic in my madness.
I believe a good military is essential but our military is in need of a bigger budget.

Sorry - the facts are facts. The US was the one resposable for protecting Europe from the USSR. The US was the one that contributed most towards Kuwait. Other nations helped, yes, but they would have failed without the US, where as the US would have been able to do it with no help.

So?
The US hasnt saved the world over and over, We british could claim this every day due to our colonial wars but we dont.

Yeah - so stop saying there were none.

I never said there wasnt plans I said there was never intention of going in.

You must be kidding! Russia had more weapons then the US did! Russia had no such problem feeding it's army - that is a joe. And as for training, the Russians may not have been trained to our levels, but they were not UNDERtrained.

So you think 100,000 nukes or 1,000 nukes means any thing?
Come on you know as well as me that no matter how many nukes you had when the first one landed the world was screwed.
It's easy to get food what about munitions? Tanks? Weapons? Armour?
How much training did the regular USSR conscript get??

BTW - their Navy had the largest SSBNs (still does) and their airforce had some of the best planes in the world. You make them out to be weak. FOr much of the cold war, they had a better military then the US, so stop this. Russia would have beaten you like a red headed step child.

Yeah they had bigger ships and planes, esspecially that infalteable one that the US spy satalites picked up LOL, they wherent weak but they were far from the most powerful in the world.
They had great planes but they where made cheap and able for mass production.
They probably would have alone but together I think we would have held them.

You can have your small force - I'll take the giant technologically advanced dominate military thank you.

Giant and techonoligally dominate doesnt go in the same army, does china have the technologically dominate army? No they have the largest army in the world. Did russia have it in the cold war? No
The fact is you must balance it.

We have the best of both worlds. We have thousands of well trained well equiped highly experienced troops.

So thats why american humvees where unarmoured?

Despite what you think, large amounts of soldiers are required for many military missions.
[/qoute]
The fact is you dont NEEED to go on many military missions.

LOL! Let me clue you in here. An engineer that works for companies like Lockheed-martin makes a grat living. A manager that works on military hardware makes just as much as a civilian product - and often more. You are simply uninformed here.

Oh so we are talking trades men and women here, right then of course you can get a good job then. But what about the thousands of want to be soldiers that dont make it?

Look, mad man, we both have our diffrent opinions.
Call a truce, sorry for all the things I said about america bad call by me.
Truce?

Originally posted by devilwasp
If you live with that then you will have no peace or allies because you fear everyone will betray you.

You are missing the point. What I am saying is that while allies are good to have, it is better to be able to be self reliant to do anything you may.

Yeah, all over russia not just in one sector.

Sorry, but the vast majority of their military was deployed neat their western boarder...The one right near Europe. Go look it up if you don't believe me. It's true. In fact, thats why the US developed the Nuetron bomb - to take out large tank formations from Russia invading Europe without destroying infrastructure and leaving large amounts of radiation.

So thats why you live in a country with hunderds of getos?

LOL! There are ghetos in every city. The fact that our country has lots of cities makes it inevitable. Think about how many ghetos are in all of Europe. Besides, if you don't believe me, GO LOOK IT UP. It is documented fact - the US has a larger per person income and a higher average standard of living then Europe.

So even when the US pres says , "the war is over" that means we are not over?
No YOU get real the fact is your not at war simply engaded in ocupation nothing else. That is not a war.

Bush never said the war was over, he said "mission accomplished" - in case you didn't know, he was on an aircraft carrier that had just served two consecutive deployments (something like 8 months at sea) and was telling the sailors on that boat they were done. Of course the media turned this into something which it was not, and people like yourself were unaware of the circumstances.

And yes, WE ARE STILL AT WAR.

Yeah was designed to fight a threat back in the days when it existed. Does that threat exist today?

Yes it does. As I have said, every other major power - including your own, Russia, China, and India - either have or will soon have next generation fighters that make our F-15 obsolete. So why should every other country get to have better planes then the US if there is no threat? Sorry - but we need to be able to compete and defeat any advisary we could meet.

The US has billions to spare it costs BILLIONs to design the F-22 anyhow

So we are not allowed to waste billions of dollars on the military - unless of course it is to make an inferior weapon when we already have a better one

GET REAL

Thats cause your people work loger hours but are less productive, so a larger force is needed.

Less productive? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep dreaming there.

I am afraid it is.

Nothing to be afraid of - your wrong. It will be cut in half in the next 4 years.

If the US chose to it could make it dissapear in 6 months.

Russia thought like that, didnt really work in many of thier conflicts did it?

The difference is, we have better training and better support. Thre is no comparing our armies. Ours is much more sophisticated.

Most of the population want status quo the seperatists and unionists are out voted.

The status quo woud be independence from China as it is currently not part of China.

No you fought for your independance and australia got its freedom, we didnt stop it.

Lke I said - niether of our nations wanted to be part of the UK.

It wasnt really a "your our ally" situation in the cold war, it was benifitioal strategically for the US to stop russia from gainging any country.
You defend taiwan to spite the chinese and to give you a strikeing base.

NATO mean anything to you. The majority of Europe was our ally.

We defend Taiwan for economic reasons - not spite or strategic in the military sense.

Falklands?

It didn't look like you needed our help last time I checked.

Giant and techonoligally dominate doesnt go in the same army, does china have the technologically dominate army? No they have the largest army in the world. Did russia have it in the cold war? No
The fact is you must balance it.

And the US has that balance. We have the most technologically advanced army in the world and one of the largest. Seems balanced to me.

So thats why american humvees where unarmoured?

No - that was due to CLinto cutting our military budget nearly in half for 8 years.

The fact is you dont NEEED to go on many military missions.

The last 100 years have proven otherwise

Oh so we are talking trades men and women here, right then of course you can get a good job then. But what about the thousands of want to be soldiers that dont make it?

Tough luck. I wanted to play college football and join the marines, but I blew out my knee. Between the two, I lost over $100,000 in scholarship money and other bonuses, plus a job, specialized training, and benifits. I got over it, and I would expect any one else to do the same. I don't know about the UK, but in the US there is no lack of opertunity for someone that cannot be a soldier. There are 298 MILLION of them.

You can ask "what abouts" all day

[edit on 10-2-2005 by American Mad Man]

Germany ones is the Euro number, and will rise some billions the next years,
russia has just 18 billion dollar military budget, not 50,8,

china has offically 25 billion dollar, inofficially its a bit over 40 billion, some sources say.

Japan has 45,8 Mrd. US-$

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Wodan]

Originally posted by mwm1331
Just so you know dribblewasp, the US has lower unemployment than anywhere in the EU. n addition despite having a 50% smaller population than the EU its GDP has just now matchsed ours. The only country in the EU which has a higher Per person GDP than the satate of alabama, which is one of our poorest states, is luxembourg...

"per person income" doesn't tell sh*t.
It's literally double lie making poor and low paid look better and hiding how much wealthier rich are!

Check this small village: 10 people are sick (no income), 80 are ordinary folk on $100 a day, 10 are politicos / mafia on $500 per day.
What's the `average' income?
TOTAL INCOMES = $ 13,000
You could legally use one of these three:
Modal average (most common value) - $100
Median average (midpoint value) - $250
Mean average (total divided by population) - $130

To see which one is `realistic', let's examine a new distribution - after the 10 mafiosi rob the 80 working folk!
TOTAL INCOMES = $ 13,000
I.e. - total income is the same, top income is higher, but most folk are broke.
Modal (most common value) - $ ZERO
Median (midpoint value) - $650
Mean (total divided by population) - $130

Yes,
`modal average' shows real situation,
`median average' is an empty `statistic',
`mean average' is double lie - makes the poor seem better-off and the rich look lower-paid.

Which average do politicos and their media prefer -
- truthful mode, empty median, or lying mean?
Yup the lying `mean'!

www.perceptions.couk.com...
And that's definitely what your holy leader from church of capitalism/corporatism wants to brainwash to people's heads... that if richest people get more and more money it will somehow rise income of those whose income has stayed constant!

The U.S. itself also has the largest gap and inequality between rich and poor compared to all the other industrialized nations. For example, the top 1% receive more money than the bottom 40% and the gap is the widest in 70 years. Furthermore, in the last 20 years while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased, it has decreased for the poorest 40%.

www.globalissues.org...

According to new figures compiled by Forbes magazine, the 497 richest people on earth come from 43 countries, led by the United States with 216, Germany with 35, and Japan with 25.
Still, the 497 billionaires registered a healthy combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion).
Indeed, this collective wealth of the 497 is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity.
...
An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about :
3 to 1 in 1820
11 to 1 in 1913
35 to 1 in 1950
44 to 1 in 1973
72 to 1 in 1992
...
While the sales of the Top 200 corporations are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.
...
Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.
...
Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation - General Motors.

Evasion of Responsibilities and Dues

As various corporations improve their profits and become increasingly wealthy and powerful, the owners and leaders naturally wish to ensure ways to protect and continue the systems that have given them these possibilities. Throughout history, powerplay and politics has resulted in the elite of the time to institute policies that will allow them to benefit. Often, it won't benefit the majority and if it does, it is only because it doesn't impact the elite negatively. Trade wars, cold wars and hot wars have resulted over acquisition of wealth and resources and the maintenance of the hegemonic structures. The Cold War, for example, was partly about maintaining old centers of capital against other rising centers. World War I and II were also wars between imperial powers over wealth and resources.
...
Corporations and corporate-funded think tanks, media and other institutions are often the ones that loudly cry at the shame of welfare and the sin of living off the government and how various social programs should be but back due to their costs. (Usually the poorest of the poor are recipients of some sort of government assistance, if it exists at all. It is usually not enough for most people. In developing countries, for example, harsh IMF, World Bank-imposed structural adjustment policies mean even more cut backs on public expenditure, where the poor get his the hardest.) What is less known though is the amount of welfare that corporations receive. It is more than what citizens receive.

Corporate welfare is the break that corporations get both legally and illegally through things like subsidies, government (i.e. public) bailouts, tax incentives and so on. Corporations can influence various governments to foster a more favorable environment for them to invest in. Often, under the threat of moving elsewhere, poorer countries are forced to lower or even nearly eliminate certain corporate taxes to these large foreign investors. (This does not help lead to the level playing field that pro corporate-globalization advocates claim.)
...
When we talk about crime, we think of the violations of law caused by individuals, some of which are horrendous. However, almost rarely talked about (especially in corporate-owned media) is the level of crime caused by corporations. Such crime includes evasion of taxes, fraud, ignoring environmental regulations, violating labor rights, supporting military and other oppressive regimes to prevent dissent from workers, including violent crime against workers, and so on.

In the US, for example, one professor estimates that corporate crime costs the country about $200 billion a year.


Through offshore tax havens and fraud, and through transfer pricing, billions of dollars go untaxed. Estimates range from $50 billion to $200 billion of revenue losses. Oxfam for example, in a report on tax havens, makes a "conservative estimate, [that] tax havens have contributed to revenue losses for developing countries of at least US$50 billion a year. To put this figure in context, it is roughly equivalent to annual aid flows to developing countries." And they stress that this is a conservative estimate as it "does not take into account outright tax evasion, corporate practices such as transfer pricing, or the use of havens to under-report profit."
...

While Smith wrote the above in 1994, it is applicable today as well, with the recent wave of news about "corporate crime" and fascination of some CEOs and other executives as some major American companies have faced bankruptcy or have collapsed. Yet, the media, while offering an outpouring of news and analysis have by and large concentrated on individual characters and looked for scapegoats (CEOs being the current flavor!). The impacts of the underlying system itself has been less discussed and when it has, often been described as basically ok, but just affected by a few "bad apples". As media critic Norman Solomon describes,
On the surface, media outlets are filled with condemnations of avarice. The July 15 edition of Newsweek features a story headlined "Going After Greed," complete with a full-page picture of George W. Bush's anguished face. But after multibillion-dollar debacles from Enron to WorldCom, the usual media messages are actually quite equivocal -- wailing about greedy CEOs while piping in a kind of hallelujah chorus to affirm the sanctity of the economic system that empowered them.

...Corporate theology about "the free enterprise system" readily acknowledges bad apples while steadfastly denying that the barrels are rotten. ... ("Let's hold people responsible -- not institutions," a recent Wall Street Journal column urged.)

...Basic questions about wealth and poverty -- about economic relations that are glorious for a few, adequate for some and injurious for countless others -- remain outside the professional focus of American journalism. In our society, prevalent inequities are largely the results of corporate function, not corporate dysfunction. But we're encouraged to believe that faith in the current system of corporate capitalism will be redemptive.
— Norman Solomon, Renouncing Sins Against the Corporate Faith, Media Beat, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, July 11, 2002

U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes Still Get Tax Breaks

Those ones with lot of wealth and power really seems to carry their bigger responsibilities well!


Neoliberalism

Free trade formed the basis of free enterprise for capitalists and up until the Great Depression of the 1930s was the primary economic theory followed in the United States and Britain. But from a global perspective, this free trade was accompanied by geopolitics making it look more like mercantilism. For both these nations (as well as others) to succeeded and remain competitive in the international arena, they had a strong foundation of imperialism, colonialism and subjugation of others in order to have access to the resources required to produce such vast wealth. As J.W. Smith notes above, this was hardly the free trade that Adam Smith suggested and it seemed like a continuation of mercantilist policies.
...
Because of the Great Depression in the 1930s, an economist, John Maynard Keynes, suggested that regulation and government intervention was actually needed in order to provide more equity in development. This led to the “Keynesian” model of development and after World War II formed the foundation for the rebuilding of the U.S-European-centered international economic system. The Marshall Plan for Europe helped reconstruct it and the European nations saw the benefits of social provisions such as health, education and so on, as did the U.S. under President Roosevelt's New Deal.

In 1945 or 1950, if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage at or sent off to the insane asylum. The idea that the market should be allowed to make major social and political decisions; the idea that the State should voluntarily reduce its role in the economy, or that corporations should be given total freedom, that trade unions should be curbed and citizens given much less rather than more social protection--such ideas were utterly foreign to the spirit of the time.

However, as elites and corporations saw their profits diminish with this equalizing effect, economic liberalism was revived, hence the term “neoliberalism”. Except, that this new form was not just limited to national boundaries, but instead was to apply to international economics as well. Starting from the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students such as Milton Friedman, the ideology of neoliberalism was pushed very thoroughly around the world.

Even before this though, there were indications that the world economic order was headed this way: the majority of wars throughout history have had economics, trade and resources at their core. The want for access to cheap resources to continue creating vast wealth and power allowed the imperial empires to justify military action, imperialism and colonialism in the name of “national interests”, “national security”, “humanitarian” intervention and so on.
...

As European and American economies grew, they needed to continue expansion to maintain the high standards of living that some elites were attaining in those days. This required holding on to, and expanding colonial territories in order to gain further access to the raw materials and resources, as well exploiting cheap labor. Those who resisted were often met with brutal repression or military interventions. This is not a controversial perception. Even U.S. President Woodrow Wilson recognized this in the early part of the 20th century:
Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.


The Great Global Depression of 1873 that lasted essentially until 1895 was the first great manifestation of the capitalist business crisis. The depression was not the first economic crisis [as there had been many for thousands of years] but the financial collapse of 1873 revealed the degree of global economic integration, and how economic events in one part of the globe could reverberate in others. ...
The Depression of 1873 revealed another big problem with capitalist expansion and perpetual growth: it can continue only as long as there is a ready supply of raw materials and an increasing demand for goods, along with ways to invest profits and capital. Given this situation, if you were an American or European investor in 1873, where would you look for economic expansion?
The obvious answer was to expand European and American power overseas, particularly into areas that remained relatively untouched by capitalist expansion -- Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Colonialism had become, in fact, a recognized solution to the need to expand markets, increase opportunities for investors, and ensure the supply of raw material. Cecil Rhodes, one of the great figures of England's colonization of Africa, recognized the importance of overseas expansion for maintaining peace at home.
As a result of this cry for imperialist expansion, people all over the world were converted into producers of export crops as millions of subsistence farmers were forced to become wage laborers producing for the market and required to purchase from European and American merchants and industrialists, rather than supply for themselves, their basic needs.

World War I was, in effect, a resource war as Imperial centers battled over themselves for control of the rest of the world. World War II was another such battle, perhaps the ultimate one. However, the former imperial nations realized that to fight like this is not the way, and became more cooperative instead.

Unfortunately, that cooperation was not for all the world's interests primarily, but their own. The Soviet attempt of an independent path to development (flawed that it was, because of its centralized, paranoid and totalitarian perspectives), was a threat to these centers of capital because their own colonies might “get the wrong idea” and also try for an independent path to their development.

Because World War II left the empires weak, the colonized countries started to break free. In some places, where countries had the potential to bring more democratic processes into place and maybe even provide an example for their neighbors to follow it threatened multinational corporations and their imperial (or former imperial) states (for example, by reducing access to cheap resources). As a result, their influence, power and control was also threatened. Often then, military actions were sanctioned. To the home populations, the fear of communism was touted, even if it was not the case, in order to gain support.

The net effect was that everyone fell into line, as if it were, allowing a form of globalization that suited the big businesses and elite classes mainly of the former imperial powers. (Hence, there is no surprise that some of the main World War II rivals, USA, Germany and Japan as well as other European nations are so prosperous, while the former colonial countries are still so poor; the economic booms of those wealthy nations have been at the expense of most people around the world.) Thus, to ensure this unequal success, power, and advantage globalization was backed up with military might (and still is).

Hence, even with what seemed like the end of imperialism and colonialism at the end of World War II, and the promotion of Adam Smith free trade and free markets, mercantilist policies still continued. (Adam Smith exposed the previous system as mercantilist and unjust. He then proposed free market capitalism as the alternative. Yet, a reading of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations would reveal that today is a far cry from the free market capitalism he suggested, and instead could still be considered monopoly capitalism, or the age-old mercantilism that he had exposed! And so, a belief system had to accompany the political objectives:
When the blatant injustices of mercantilist imperialism became too embarrassing, a belief system was imposed that mercantilism had been abandoned and true free trade was in place. In reality the same wealth confiscation went on, deeply buried within complex systems of monopolies and unequal trade hiding under the cover of free trade. Many explanations were given for wars between the imperial nations when there was really one common thread: “Who will control resources and trade and the wealth produced through inequalities in trade?” All this is proven by the inequalities of trade siphoning the world's wealth to imperial centers of capital today just as they did when the secret of plunder by trade was learned centuries ago. The battles over the world's wealth have only kept hiding behind different belief systems each time the secrets of laying claim to the wealth of others' have been exposed.
— J.W. Smith, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century, (M.E. Sharpe, 2000) p.126

Going Global
The Reagan and Thatcher era in particular, saw neoliberalism pushed to most parts of the globe, almost demonizing anything that was public, and encouraging the privatization of anything that was owned by the public, using military interventions if needed. Structural Adjustment policies were used to open up economies of poorer countries so that big businesses from the rich countries could own or access many resources cheaply.
So, from a small, unpopular sect with virtually no influence, neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with its dogmatic doctrine, its priesthood, its law-giving institutions and perhaps most important of all, its hell for heathen and sinners who dare to contest the revealed truth. Oskar Lafontaine, the ex-German Finance Minister who the Financial Times called an "unreconstructed Keynesian" has just been consigned to that hell because he dared to propose higher taxes on corporations and tax cuts for ordinary and less well-off families.

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.
— George Kennan, , US Cold War planner, 1948

So that's what that "freedom, human rights and equality" means in Dubya's sermons!
Maintaining freedom of capital to subjugate human rights and environment, to deeper inequality by using poors to make more money for rich.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
-George Bush, Sr.
PS. How does this fit to your constitution? Isn't the freedom of religion one of the most important parts of it?

[edit on 12-2-2005 by E_T]

This doesn't have much (if anything) to do with the topic but I though it was funny so heres the link.
(its has some (animated) video clips of Bush & Kerry)
JibJab