It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by snafu7700
and i guess britian is completely innocent of military excursions to further political interests?
your country has a much longer history with this sort of behaviour, maybe yall should lead the way, you know, show us how it works? oh right, you tried that....little thing called the american revolution started you down the path of enlightenment.
Originally posted by snafu7700
and why exactly was it that we left our boys to die in the philipines by entering the european theater of operations first? maybe because europe was deamed the most pressing problem strategically at the moment? americans wanted an immediate strike back at japan, but we stuck by britian and france and poured all of our war effort into europe as our boys in the pacific were massacred.
Originally posted by snafu7700
and i guess britian is completely innocent of military excursions to further political interests?
ok, then what was our reasoning behind rebuilding japan? i'll agree that communism was a part of it, but we have always believed in fixing what we have broken, unlike certain other countries that leave the mess for others to fix later (iraq, india/pakistan, etc).
you are showing your ignorance of the american system. yes, it has its failures, as does every system, but no one is denied care simply because they dont have insurance. (again, show me a system that is perfect, and i'll show you one helluva politically staged circus act).
the same thing was said by americans between world wars I and II. we got caught with our pants down because the military had been slashed so badly. we were way behind on modern technology as well, thanks to the pacifist attitudes. time and time again it has been proven that planning for war is the only way to truelly maintain peace.
your country has a much longer history with this sort of behaviour, maybe yall should lead the way, you know, show us how it works? oh right, you tried that....little thing called the american revolution started you down the path of enlightenment.
Originally posted by kedfr
I'm not arguing the ins and outs of America's operations during WWII.
However, it only entered the field of battle after Japan attacked its military base. The Second World War had been going for 2 years before the US entered the war. There are a number of reasons why but it is highly unlikely that they would have entered WW2 if it hadn't had been attacked.
However, as much as I love studying history, my argument does not rest on America's past history but to its present - the grostesque and unnecessary expenditure on its armed forces.
No, absolutely not. The 19th century in particular saw Britain protect its interests in a number of vile imperialist activities - and this continued even into the 1950s with the Suez Crisis.
And before you say anything, yes, Britain did get involved in Iraq and I was and still feel bitterly upset and betrayed by this.
In any case, it is a very arrogant to believe that one country can sweep into another and solve its problems. Britain believed this for years during the Victorian period and the first part of the 20th century. It is a misguided superiority complex.
I have never suggested that a state-backed medical system is perfect. I live in England and know what the NHS is like. However, the US system is far more imperfect that a NHS-type system. The US system is imbalanced and wildly favoured against the poor. How can a system where you have to pay for your medical care be acceptable? There have been many cases of sick people not covered (or not covered adaquately) having massive debts running into thousands of pounds after treatment.
Moreover, the hospitals that do offer limited medicare programmes are usually notoriously bad. If you have good cover, then you're fine - you'll have access to one of the - if not the - best medical care in the world. If not, well, tough.
There is a big difference in military readiness and having as large and bloated an armed forces as the US.
Moreover, the 'planning for war leading to peace' argument that you suggest didn't work in 1914. Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Russia all kept on building up their militaries and planned for war. If you are a military nation then you will - at some point - use that military for war.
Britain was not a feudal society during the War of Independence. Far from it. For one thing it was industrialising. Also, Britain was then - as now - a constitutional monarchy, and had been ever since 1688. The 18th century saw the power of the king decline considerably in favour of Parliament.
Historical baiting is pretty foolish and insulting. All countries have vile aspects to their history. History is useful as a reference point for the present and to put the present into a context. To argue the rights and wrongs of a nation based on the actions of its people centuries ago acheives nothing.
America does spend too much of its federal budget on military expenditure. On purely an economic level, it is already the cause of a massive budget deficit and this will only get worse and worse.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
your stated that there was a huge gulf between the rich and poor here in America. Not so...I say once again you have been swallowing to much television , news media. and public education. Also as I stated the gulf is much higher elsewhere by the nations I used as examples.
As to bailing other countrys out...when was the last time other countrys bailed another country out ..and for what reasons?????? Would like to know his history. I will remind you I am well aware of UK history and particulary the history of the Crown!
Think about this one Kedfr...Yes hundreds of billions are not spent on pregnant women by our military ..however ...millions of dollars are spendton medical care including non military people ...dependents. The military is looking for ways to put this onto private medicine and there by cutting thier expenditures. I think this program is called Champus or such. It is a huge burden on the military...and its budget. Even our military is struggling for moneys.
Once again..do you have any idea how much it costs to outfit a ship for women.
IN the hands of our great socialist thinkers our military is rapidly on the way to becoming a huge social experiment. I am loath to see the next social experiment forced on our military at the hands of these socialist politicians....in the name of "fairness". By the time you get done ..you wont have a military..you will have a failing political social experiment...not a capable mililtary.
One more thing Kedfr...our government as are many in this world is not paid for by taxation...it is financed by taxation..a huge difference. Most Americans are totally ignorant about this. They have no idea what a deficit does to ones political/economic situation.
Once again...free...is not free...it is taking from people who earn and given to people who dont earn. No matter what people want to use to justify this it is not just..it is politically expedient. This is theft.
Kedfr..I can take this even further. Under The American system there is a concept of Private property..not known in this manner under most nations. The very privateness of property ..and money is property as stated in many court cases here in the United States. We are not under a Soverign here as is the case in many nations. The concept of "Just" which many people with your line of thinking does away with the privateness of property under the guise of "Just". It is still theft.
Notice about socialist and socialist thinkers ..they never want to do away with the property..they do away with the privateness of it so it can be redistributed according to their view of expediencey and "Just". They do not mention that it drives doctors , for example, out of thier professions and into others which can pay more. This violates every principle of free market economics which has historically produced the greatest plenty this world has ever known...even doctors. Doctors with any skill level at all come from other nations to this country to practice....they dont get paid enough in other nations with "socialized medicine " to justify thier staying and working under such a system. YOu dont seem to mention this happening.??
Putting double and tripple the burden on what you claim is "rich peoples " to support this standard of living is still theft under any guise.Eventually it wont pay to be rich...or conversely ..these people will find ways to hide or conceal their assets....does this already happen???? What could you possibly be thinking.
As I stated ..our military should be reduced to 1% of what it is today..that way nations like yours will have to shoulder more and more of the burden...along with massive welfare programs. That will make people with your line of thinking satisfied. What could you possibly be thinking???
Once more Kedfr...class warfare is textbook socialist Hegelian dialectic..it is the core doctrine in Communism. Exactly how well Communism worked is known history ..if people ever want to study it for what it is worth. Much of this is hidden from public view especially in public schools while they teach socialism the next step before communism.
What I know about the history of communism is that it has been supported economically by the west from its birth..it is a failed system which has been sold to the west in public schools as a great system while leaving out the fact that it has been supported economically by the west every time it comes close to collapsing and failing. Thesis, Antithesis ,Synthesis. Classic Hegelian dialectic used to steer the Masses ..in ignorance and put them under the hands of a "Soverign". Socialism/class warefare will eventually do the same thing just slower. Socialism will however ..give great power to the body politic where they will become the "Soverign" and fleece the public for votes. This is steadily being done here under the guise of ..."Fairness and Just" I venture to say that the same people who are running this game in the continent are attempting to run it here as the take is giving out in the continent and they are looking to fleece this country more than they are already fleecing it currently.
Oh ..before I forget ..balancing out society...equilibrium..is a doctrine that can be found in books like the one I have in my private collection. This book is titled
"Morals and Dogma"
by Albert Pike
It is a book on Occult religions. The other name for Occult is Paganism/Feudalism. Feudalism meaning having a Soverign. I will declare to you Kedfr...that politics is indeed a religion with very zealous devout adherants. The real nature of politics is in fact ...Occult. Occult meaning hidden and concealed insiders verses outsiders...class warfare so to speak. Thus leaving the field clear for others to play through unnoticed. Historically..politics has always, though starting out under noble principles, tended twords theft and fleecing of the public. Usually with the nations being weakened internally and thereby being overtaken externally.
I will remind you Kedfr...many nations like the UK have chosen politically to spend moneys on social programs not their militarys and been caught with their pants down and begged and pleaded for others to come to their aid at huge expense to these other nations. Think this through carefully before trying to inflict such a poor social system on others..your safety net may be lost by this process. By this process you make other nations expendible and disposable under the guise of "Just".
Originally posted by snafu7700
if you love studying history so much, then you should know that in order to keep from repeating our past mistakes, we have to learn from history. one lesson we have learned here in the states, is that every time we reduce the size of our military, it bites us in the arse, and i really dont care whether or not you agree, because you dont have to depend upon our military for your protection.
and i live in the united states and know what our health care system is like. likewise, i have never suggested that our system is perfect either. again, just because we have a different way of doing things doesnt make it better or worse than yours....just different. what is so hard to understand about that concept?
...again, showing a complete ignorance of our system. i have been at both levels. i was raised by a single mom working three jobs and still needing foodstamps to get by. i never owned a new set of clothes until i was eight years old. but we always got good health care. i am now quite well off (thanks to my initial training in the navy), and have very good insurance coverage, and the health care is pretty much the same. you need to do a little more research before you comment on how bad it is here.
besides, we arent "bloated" by any stretch of the imagination.
for a self-proclaimed lover of history, you sure do get it wrong alot.
the countries responsible for WWI were building up their militaries for a confrontation. every one of them were just looking for an excuse to try out their new toys. building up for war is quite different from keeping a modernized navy in order to protect yourself and your citizens.
oh, but it is very pertinent to the conversation. again, you have to have a knowledge of history in order to succeed in the future. if we do not argue the rights and wrongs of our (both english and american) forefathers, we are cursed to make the same mistakes they did.
no, the cause of the massive budget deficit is the current war on terrorism. before 9/11 we were well on our way to conquering our deficit troubles. war always puts you back in the hole, while at the same time it eventually brings you back up due to all the different contractors building more war material and creating more jobs. youre blaming the wrong people at the wrong time.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
The budget figures I was able to find were for the Fiscal Year 2000 at 434 billion dollars for welfare programs. Your figures for the Military are 419 billion dollars in 2006.
If the figures on welfare are for the year 2000 ...no doubt they have been cut in half today...so I can see where you would think the military should give up a huge chunk of cash to keep welfare going......Not.!!!
Level the field out...I would like to actually know what the projections are for welfare for the year 2006...I am absolutely sure they have gone down by at least half...considering how many politicians get relected on the basis of give away programs....not..!!
As to when the UK got caught unprepared for war against the Germans prior to 1940...they were spending money on anything but thier Military machine. Also what Snafu said was correct ...the US made up alot of this difference in aid to the UK....and continued throughout the war. Wonder what is actually in your history books???? I know they are trying to conceal this knowlege here in this country in our history books.
By the way ..on this thread...you mentioned paranoia...like the 1950 here in the United States with communism and Joseph Mcarthy. How paranoid were the British in September of 1940 following the disaster at Dunkirk. Also what was the state of the British military readyness???? There is the example of not being prepared.
The theft in our economy is caused by Deficits...I am surprised you dont seem to know this. Whenever a government raises thier deficit level to finance another project...they use this new money creation to buy up goods and services out of the ecomony. This means the rest of us have to pay more for what goods and services are left in this same economy. It works like a auction ..when more people want the goods remaining they wind up paying more for it. Government can create deficits unlimited for their expenditures...this leaves the citizen as their main competition ...it is thier citizens they must restrict in their purchasing power so that they do not purchase more than the government is already stealing out of the economy. I say stealing ...beause the government does not actually produce any product for the moneys they create by deficit ..unless you consider more government a product needed by the citizenry. THis is how stealing is done in any economy. You can figure out some of this if you read books like John Maynard Keynes , Economic consequences of the Peace...and contrast this with books by Ludwig Von Mises from the Austrian school of economics.
Once again ..deficit money creation by governments for financing Government is how they steal out of the economy. This is a concept totally avoided by socialist thinkers. This represents a huge difference in financing a government and paying through taxes for a government.
Once again ..my point is that social programs eat up more of the budget than the military. Like a good socialist thinker/politician you deal off the bottom of the deck..and hide the cards you dont want others to see and post only the ones you want seen. This is the nature of politics...concealed hidden..occult which is a type of religion. I am surprised you have never made the connection especially if you have read so much history. Obviously by your fervor in posting ..you are very devout in this religion.
Would suggest you look up the concept of Gods and demi gods in this arena...and historically. Those days are not stuck back in antiquity they are still with us. Technnology/education just hides the way this is done to the public...Oh..there is that word again..hidden ..occult.
One more thing Kedfr...the UN is a nest of Anti American..socialist thinkers who are themselves a huge burden on the City of New York. You know ..burden..welfare give aways...to the UN. I wouldnt quote them for statistics concerning America. Your post said ..Parts of America...not America. Parts of America makes all Americans automatically guilty by default. Ive seen this type of political posturing over and over for a pass to play through. It doesnt sell to thinking people. I dont care for this type of default setting ..especially quoting UN statistics. The UN has been horribly ineffective in almost everything it has tried in its short history ...except spending the moneys of others. It has a bad name among most Americans and this is becoming more and more obvious as time goes by.
Originally posted by kedfr
The lessons of the past offer a guide to the present and the future. However, it is only that - a guide. History is all about interpretation of evidence - for instance, do you want to explore the history of empires that over-exerted themselves and crumbled because of their military involvement (ie. the British Empire), or countries that put all their effort into their military at the expense of the standard of life of poor, resulting in political and social instability (the Russian Revolution)? America's defence expenditure is roughly the same as the rest of the world's military expenditure put together. The Cold War is over. Massive military spending is a drain on resources.
Please see the recent report by the UN I quoted above in my previous post, stating that the US is the only Western nation without a state-run medical system. This has led to the situation where there is a massive differentiation between healthcare for the wealthy and the poor.
Also, I have family in the US. Some are very poor without jobs (and therefore cannot even get decent medicine when they are sick) while others have good jobs and good access to some of the best hospitals in the world.
Please do not call me ignorant. It is very insulting.
$419 billion would suggest otherwise. As I said, this is roughly equal to the rest of the world's defence expenditure put together.
Britain, France, Germany etc thought that their massive expenditure in armies would make it less likely that war would break out. There was a belief that the technological arms race (especially between Germany and Britain's navies) would lead to a military stalemate. To say that they wanted an excuse to try out their new toys is a gross misunderstanding of the myriad of treaties that led to the July Crisis, and indeed the run-up to war. Indeed, it has been argued that if Britain hadn't dithered and had shown its intentions to side with France earlier, Austria would have been forced to negotiate with Serbia and war would not have occured. While there were certainly 'hawks' present in Europe in 1914, war was not an inevitability.
Yes and no. It is one thing to analyse the past. This is essential to gain an understanding of the present. It is quite another to wax lyrical as to the pros and cons of particular nations. Moreover, I do not believe that the past offers exact allegories to the present and so what 'works' in the past may not 'work' in the present. History is a useful tool but it can also be hugely misleading.
America was in the black before the Bush administration came in. However, the The 'War on Terror' has been a misnomer. Iraq and Afghanistan have caused huge economic problems for the US. Military spending may create jobs but it is not the most efficient use of resources.
$125.6 billion is spent on the US Navy alone. This is an absolutely massive amount of money and to me does not equate to being 'quite reasonable'.
Originally posted by snafu7700
yes, but we arent talking about our military involvement elsewhere in the world, we are discussing the size of the US Navy, which is perfectly reasonable considering the size of our country and the amount of shoreline we have to protect.
america's military spending is in no way equal to the rest of the world combined. check out the stats on china's military (if you can find them), or india's for that matter. the cold war may be over, but there are many threats still to offset, and we still have a huge landmass to protect. furthermore, you have shown in your own stats that our military spending is somewhere in the range of 450 billion, while our civilian welfare expenditures are well over 1.5 trillion.
first of all, i didnt call you ignorant. i specifically said you are showing an ignorance or our system. two completely different things. if youre going to take the debate personally, then you need to move on to threads in the "free for all."
second, if you have poor and rich family members in the states, why arent the rich helping to improve the lives of the poor? family is something we take pride in here, and we help each other as much as we can.
again, i have lived on both sides of the poverty level, and know from firsthand experience that your "facts" are suspect at best. you can read UN reports all day long, but i have lived here all my life (with the exception of two years in italy serving my country), and can tell you that it is no where near as bad as you make it out to be.
for the third time, our system is different. not better, not worse, but different. i'm not trying to damn your system based on reports from the UN or elsewhere, because i dont have firsthand knowledge of how it works, only reports thereof. how can you justify your criticism without any firsthand experience?
and i say that for a country of our size, it is perfectly reasonable. furthermore, your facts are wrong. china (the country shaping up to be our next real adversary), spends at least as much (and i cant find any data, but the size of their military should prove it).
umm, iraq and afghanistan (especially afghanistan) are the war on terrorism. as i have said before, i dont believe we should have entered iraq to begin with, as it wasnt really a part of the WOT. but it is now, in a major way....and to leave would be to slice our own wrists.
and of course it is not the most efficient use of resources. war never is. but from time to time it is a necessary evil.
again, because you are looking at that number [$126 billion spent on the US Navy alone] from a country the size of our new england. it is quite reasonable when you consider our huge landmass, shoreline, and economy.
Originally posted by kedfr
There are numerous statistics on this.
For instance, Jane's published an article from PWC research stating 'US defence budget will equal ROW combined within 12 months' - The US defence budget reached US$417.4 billion in 2003 - 46 per cent of the global total.
www.janes.com...
Elsewhere, estimates range from around 43-50% of the total military expenditure. China in contrast is around 7%. India is 2%.
Civilian expenditure does make up the bulk of spending but then again, so it should. In the UK for example, military spending accounts for around 10% of total expenditure. In the US it is more like 20%.
Originally posted by snafu7700
i got sick of using your numbers, knowing that they just didnt sound right. so i went searching and found out why they didnt sound right: because you have completely misrepresented the numbers.
CRS Report for Congress
using 2002 numbers, the US definitely is at the top of the world in military expenditures. number one in fact at 348.5 million dollars. but wait, lets look at GDP.
by GDP percentage, the US isnt even in the top 25! US GDP: 3.3
but guess who is?
north korea at 25%
saudi arabia at 12%
syria at 10.3%
israel at 9.7%
russia at 4.8%
for those of you who dont understand what i just showed you, GDP (or gross domestic product) is a measure of the value of economic production of a particular territory in financial capital terms during a specified period(wikipedia). so while kedfr makes it look like we are spending such a horrid amount on our military, it turns out that we are actually spending (as of 2002) about 3.3 % of our country's yearly output.
so yes kedfr, while we were (in 2002) at 44.7% of the worlds military expenditure, because our economy is so large, that number really doesnt mean anything until you move into what percentage of the GDP it happens to be.
incidentally, china was 4.1% and if you read here, you'll find that most of the data on china is starting to become suspect as we learn more about how they report their military expenditures.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I agree with your assessment of how this budget and the numbers are gotten and also by inference what the numbers posted are for. Politics.
This is what I meant by dealing off the bottom of the deck.Showing only one side of the profile for political reasons. This is textbook and often predictable in this kind of debate. Especially with information coming from the UN. This is the "hidden" side...it looks good on paper till you really take a closer look. Like the fine print.
Furthermore I dont understand how eliminating the spending on the military and spending it on "welfare programs" changes the debate on the deficit or inflation. In my mind you merely transfer the spending from one group to another. Nothing changes in spending. It does however put ointment on peoples feelings ...who want to take from one group and give for free to another and feel that this is just or justified. Someone has to pay for both groups ...as a career. Also in my mind ..spending on social progams outspends the military in this country. Has been this way for years now. This is not shown by people using this tack about military spending. A very onesided fingerprint to me identifying alot.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Originally posted by kedfr
Statistics can be interpreted in a number of different ways. However, whichever way you look at it, the US spend too much on its military.
Another way of looking at military spending is by GDP/per capita. While Israel (a very militaristic nation) spends $1,429 per person on its military. Singapore is second with $10009 with US third on $935.64. In contrast, other major economies are quite a way behind. France spends $766 per person; Australia $573.68; the UK $524 per person and Germany $470 per person.
(source: www.nationmaster.com...)
This is why the best comparison is by looking at other similarly Western states. Even taking in your statistic of military spending as a % of GDP, the US still spends more than other Western nations. The difference between say 3.3% and 2-5-2.6% (for Britain/France for example) may not seem like a lot but it accounts for around $100 billion.