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.

 

Is the U.S Navy too small

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
and i guess britian is completely innocent of military excursions to further political interests?

Do we have the money to do so?



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.

Yeah it has, mabye we should bring it back and show the world what real terror is right and instead of looking where we aim we can just do it SS style? Kill everything.

"Path of enlightenment"? What is this? SG-1?




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

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.


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.


Originally posted by snafu7700
and i guess britian is completely innocent of military excursions to further political interests?


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.

However, the US has fostered its own brand of imperialism in the post-war period. In part this is the coca-cola imperialism of consumerism and culture, but it is also a very aggressive militarialism seen in a number of different theatres around the world. Much as the British empire often used the rheotic of 'saving' the natives (through their more 'advanced' religion, technology, culture politics etc) so has the US used similar rhetoric. The US did not go into Vietnam because it wanted to save it, it believed that a Communist Vietnam would trigger a domino effect of Communist revolution across Asia - threatening its economic/political interests. As for Iraq, well the reasons for the overthrowal of Sadamm Hussain are well documented elsewhere but it wasn't because of his horrific human-rights record. It was because of economics and expanding a political/economic sphere of influence.

Unlike Britain in the 19th century, this is a process that is still very much in evidence.

And before you say anything, yes, Britain did get involved in Iraq and I was and still feel bitterly upset and betrayed by this.



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).


As I said earlier, I am not defending Britain's imperialism, nor do I want to get involved in a long-winded 'my country did this, but your country did that'.

However, to answer your point, to say that Britain left a mess in India/Pakistan for others to fix is rather naive. Britain could have tried to stay in India after WWII but considering it was practically falling apart due to the Ghandi-led resistance to British rule, it was apposite to leave as quickly as possible. Britain had exploited India for centuries and it would have been foolish to try and 'fix' it by staying for another 10-20 years. India needed independence and even though years of trouble ensued between India and Pakistan (for which Britain held considerable responsibilty due to its rule), the post-war Labour government made the best decision under the circumstances and pulled out.

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.



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).


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.



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.


There is a big difference in military readiness and having as large and bloated an armed forces as the US. It is not an efficient use of resources. In any case, America is not at peace. There have been very few years in the post-war period when American forces did not see active duty.

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.

The only exception to this has been Nuclear Bombs which acted as a deterrant for conflict between the US and the USSR. But this wasn't infalliable: we still came pretty close in 1963...



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.


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.

Oh and incidently, America was not responsible for the Enlightment movement. Yes, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were important aspects of the Enlightenment, but it was a trans-national movement, based in the writings of such men as Rousseau, Voiltare, Kant and Locke as well as the aforementioned Americans.

In any case, whether Britain was 'enlightened' by America is something else entirely. We did not adapt republicanism, nor federalism, for instance.

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.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
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".



Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I don't think so... it's big enough... After all they've got as many carriers as the other nations in the world have combined...



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Size doesn't matter. It's quality that counts (or so I'm led to believe).

The US can field more aircraft at sea than the vast majority of countries have equipped in their land-based air forces. Although wars are won on the ground eventually, the first thing anyone needs to do is control the skies. After you've got control you send in the troops.
The USN is based around carrier fleets and amphibious landings. If you've got the ships to provide cover for them, then you don't really need anything else apart from a good submarine fleet with a first strike capability for emergencies.

You only have to look back to 1982 to see this sort of fleet being used in war. The UK took on Argentina using a force of two carriers and two amphibious landers. The rest of the Navy was there to provide air cover and to guard the military shipping lanes. Occasionally, frigates and destroyers were used as gunships to pound Argentine positions, but they were only able to do this because they had a greater range than the enemies guns.

It's highly probable that the old days where fleets met at sea are over. This era was when you required numbers in battle. But nowadays, a fleet can be destroyed without even sighting the enemy's navy.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kedfr

I'm not arguing the ins and outs of America's operations during WWII.


then why bring it up?



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.


we spent the first two years helping you guys with a continuous stream of weapons, equipment, and general supplies. huge convoys shipped out from the US to Britain on a weekly basis starting shortly after dunkirk. FDR had every intention of entering the war, he just needed a way in that allowed for complete backing of the american people. to this day there is speculation that he knew of the impending pearl harbor attack and did nothing so that he would have that excuse.



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.


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.



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.


we agree on something here. i dont believe we should have gone into iraq either, but whats done is done, and if we leave now, it will get even worse.




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 agree, but that has nothing to do with the size of our navy.



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.


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?




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.


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.



There is a big difference in military readiness and having as large and bloated an armed forces as the US.


again, history has shown us otherwise. besides, we arent "bloated" by any stretch of the imagination.



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.


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.



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.


ok, i probably should not have made that comment, but it was more in jest than anything else. i do realize that britain has been a constitutional monarchy for quite some time. for that, i apologize.



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.


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.



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.


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.

and to get back on topic, the US Navy expenditures were, before 9/11, and are now quite reasonable, and in no way affect our civil health care programs.

i'm not even going to bother commenting on the pregnancy in the navy issue brought up earlier, because i think the posts in themselves show the igorance of the comments.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

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.


A recent UN report (September 2005) indicated that Parts of America are as Poor as the Third World (see [url=http://hdr.undp.org...]).

"The United States is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage has never reached all Americans. While more than half the population have health insurance coverage through their employers and almost all the elderly are covered through Medicare, more than one in six non-elderly Americans (45 million) lacked health insurance in 2003. Over a third (36%) of families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Hispanic Americans (34%) are more than twice as likely to be uninsured as white Americans (13%), and 21% of African Americans have no health insurance.

"More than in any other major industrial country the cost of treatment is a major barrier to access in the United States. Over 40% of the uninsured do not have a regular place to receive medical treatment when they are sick, and more than a third say that they or someone in their family went without needed medical care, including recommended treatments or prescription drugs, in the last year because of cost."

(Source: UN Human Development Report, Chapter 2. p.58)

The report also notes that the infant mortality rate of US African Americans is comparable to Kerala in India (around 15%). The infant mortality rate of White Americans is a little over 5%.



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!


This all depends on the interpretation of 'bailing another country out'. One country's liberation is another's occupation. And in any case, there are plenty of examples of nations invading other countries.

Was Vietnam 'bailed out'? Or Nicaragua? Or Iraq?



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.


The US Defence budget for 2006 was $419.3 billion. This includes:

$108.9 billion military personnel
$147.8 billion Operation & Maintenance
$78.0 billion for procurement
$68.4 billion for RDT&E
$7.8 billion for Military Construction
$4.2 billion for family housing

The costs for medical care are not insignificant but they are relatively small in comparison to the total figure (figures below are from the 2005 budget)

$17.6 billion for the defense health program
$10.3 billion Medicare-eligible retiree health
$7.3 billion for direct medical personnel costs


The total projected spending in the 2006 Federal Budget is $2472 billion dollars. Therefore, military spending accounts for around a sixth of all spending. More is spent on defense than any other department.

(Source: Department of Defense - www.dod.mil...)


Once again..do you have any idea how much it costs to outfit a ship for women.


You know what? I couldn't find this information anywhere. Perhaps you could tell me.


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.


I have no idea what you are talking about. I was under the impression that America had a republican administration that was quite right-wing. I'm sure than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al would be quite surprised at being labelled a socialist. What 'failing political social experiment' are you refering to?


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.


Theft? Hardly. Theft is the criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent. Quite apart from the fact that taxation readdresses market failures, democratic governments are in a very real sense the representatives of the people - therefore taxation is permitted by the populace. Voters acquiese to taxation as a necessary evil through the ballot box. Moreover, 'personal property' is a social condition - one does not 'earn' wealth independently of society - quite on the contrary, property occurs through interaction with (and often exploitation of) others. Without taxation, society would be prone to a world without policemen for instance, or traffic lights. How can taxation be theft when the taxation is used to benefit society as a whole (of which you, as an individual) are a part of?


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.??


Laissez-faire economics has major weaknesses. Quite apart from the huge gaps in society that are not accounted for by the free market (ie. streetlamps - who would pay for them without government intervention?), the free market has been responsible for grotesque exploitation - ie. the slave trade, child labour etc. Moreover, an unfettered free market is liable to induce monopolies and oligarchies, as well as a huge discrepancy between rich and poor. From a social perspective, the imbalances of a pure free market will produce unstable and anarchic societies.


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.


So let me get this straight. The wealthy/big businesses will pay accountants huge amounts of money to find tax loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes? This happens anyway. Governments all over the world try to plug these loopholes.

I'm not suggesting a 90% tax rate (as was the case in England in the 1960s) but progressive taxation is fair. Is it really just to expect the poorest elements of society to shoulder a higher tax burden than their wealthier counterparts?


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???


I would be delighted if America didn't strut their military all over the world, as if they owned it. The US has caused an awful lot of problems with an aggressive militarism.


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.


Class warfare? Communism has never been fully implemented by any government - largely because it was a utopoa based upon social/economic determinism. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc countries had a twisted totalitarianism. Was it a failure? The USSR was certainly a repugnant country in terms of human rights, but in many respects it was also a huge economic success. In an extremely short period of time, it went from an agrarian nation to a highly industrialised country (1917-1930s). However, it did this on the back not of Communism per se, but brutal Stalinist exploitation of labourers.

The failure of the USSR lay in its determination to keep pace with the US in terms of its armed forces, its space programme & its nuclear weapons. This basically bankrupted it.

However, communism is not socialism, even though their roots are similar,


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.


Unfortunately, you make absolutely no sense.


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.


Politics is a religion? That is a new one for me. I always understood religion to be based in the belief in a God.

As for nations being weakened internally and then being taken over externally, this sounds like a replica of the McCarthyist paranoid rhetoric of the 1950s.

Politicians are not usually 'nice' people. Most of the time they are corrupt, power-crazed, arrogant and unpleasant individuals. Most of the time one votes (if one has the opportunity to vote) for the least worst party. There are very few true 'zealots' as you describe. Most of the time, one supports a political party because you want them to protect your interests.


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".


Please tell me when this has happened. When have countries been 'caught with their pants down' due to spending too much money on welfare? The UK and other European countries may have requested US aid after WW2 but that was not because of social welfare programmes. It was because Germany, France, Italy, Britain etc were destroyed during the war.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I have just responded at length to another post and I do not have the energy to respond to all your comments. However, I will try my best.


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.


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.



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.


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.


besides, we arent "bloated" by any stretch of the imagination.


$419 billion would suggest otherwise. As I said, this is roughly equal to the rest of the world's defence expenditure put together.




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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.

and to get back on topic, the US Navy expenditures were, before 9/11, and are now quite reasonable, and in no way affect our civil health care programs.

$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'.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by kedfr]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
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.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The UN itself is in this country for a specific reason. Most nations could not afford the welfare give aways necessary to sustain a group like the UN in their borders. They would have thrown them out a long time ago. The stories coming out of New York City and what many of those ambassadors are up to are legend. Not all of them but many ..it is a huge annual burden and blemish on the City of New York. Many New Yorkers do not like it. It wouldnt bother me at all if they moved the whole thing outside of this country. Perhapsed you folks need to support the UN in the UK for the next fifty years. I wouldnt miss it at all.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   

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..!!


Finding accurate and consistant figures for the budget is nigh on impossible. I have looked through numerous governmental sources, and each has its own different statistics.

However, the best one I could find is at www.whitehouse.gov... as it gives a historical overview of government income and expenditure.

It also appears to be a good area of comparison and relative detail as regards to spending.

Total Defense spending in 2004 was $455, 908 billion.
Total Health spending in 2004 was $240,134 billion.
Total Medicare spending in 2004 was $269,360 billion
Total Income Security spending in 2004 was $332,837 billion
Total Social Security spending in 2004 was $495,548 billion.

Although a considerable amount of money is paid for welfare services in the US, most of this is for particular groups - in particular the elderly and disabled.

Social Security is largely comprised of disability/pensions and monies paid to surving dependents. This is paid for through a dedicted payroll tax. Medicare is similarly provides health care for those over the age of 65 and for disabled people. Medicaid is in the process of undergoing significant cuts. However, it is aimed at five broad groups - Pregnant women; Children and teenagers; People who are aged; People who are blind; People who are disabled

However, it is estimated (by the US Department of Health) that there are around 45 million Americans who currently do not have medical insurance. These may be employed in low income jobs or they may be unemployed.

America is the only Western nation without a state-run medical health system. It is truly a disgrace that such a large number of people (roughly equivalent to the entire population of England) fall through the net.



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.


The UK did not massive invest in its welfare state until after the end of World War II, when the Labour Government came into power.

As for UK spending in the run-up to war, well like the US, it had been suffering from the effects of the Depression and indeed almost 20 years of economic difficulties. The Conservative government followed the then standard laissez-faire doctrine in an attempt to boost the economy through tax cuts and by cutting expenditure. This was not a military issue but an economic one. Even though the economy was improving in the 1930s it was still in a pretty poor state.

And yes, the UK was un-prepared for war. But so was France hiding behind its Maginot Line. Britain had a modern, professional armed forces but it was not huge and it was just not mobilised for a full war - in fact, no country apart from Germany was. Moreover, the Versailles Treaty was - in theory - meant to maintain a sense of peace and order across Europe by forcing Germany to limit its armed forces. However, the Germans under the Nazis broke the conventions of the Treaty and became a fully militarised nation.

Britain in the late 1930s followed the ill-fated policy of appeasement. It did not want war (the memory of rushing into WWI still burned into the public consciousness) and the country was not ready for full-blown war.

As for US help before WWII, well FDR was sympathetic to Britain's plight and the US did give aid to Britain in the form of the Lend-Lease and other aid packages, however, there were many vocal advocates of isolationism in the US at this time. I still maintain that the US would not have entered the war if Pearl Harbour had not been bombed.

In and case, what do our history books teach us? History books should not 'teach' us anything as such. History books are comprised of the opinions of educated men from all over the globe and one should read as many as one can and then reach a conclusion as to the most convincing arguments. Our opinion of the past changes and evolves with time when new evidence and sources come to light. History is subjective - there are very few objective 'facts' apart from dates and kings, queens, presidents etc. However, if one is to present any subjective opinion then one needs to be back it up with evidence. There is little in the way of a 'conspiracy' when it comes to history. What is taught in schools is perhaps a different matter - this is politicised and often overlaps with a sense of nationalism and national identity.


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 British after Dunkirk were not so much paranoid as scared witless. However, they composed themselves and fully mobilised the country into a war-economy.


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.


I've studied economics and know a fair amount public deficits. Naturally Keynesian economics would favour short-term public deficits to boost demand. Milton Friedman and monetarist would note that such policies would lead to inflation and longer-term problems in the economy. Even so, I would not call this 'theft'. Bad management of the economy - quite possibly - but theft? No.


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.


Social programmes do eat up a lot of the budget. I am not denying that - more's the point, they should! Governments have a responsibility to the electorate. They should protect them, they should keep them healthy, they should educate them, they should allow a peaceful, stable society but also they should not create an imbalanced society where the wealthy are allowed to exploit its citizens. Governments are OUR representatives - they may govern us but it is they who are answerable to US.

As for socialism is an occult religion, this is a joke. I do not see any political philosophy as the answer to all our ills. I am no Communist, nor am I a Socialist. I lean towards the left but I do not adhere strictly to any political code. Yes there are those who ferverantly believe in certain political groups - whether they are libertarians, communists or whatever. I don't deal 'off the bottom of the deck', nor am I a member of the occult, merely because I do not agree with your posts. I do not agree with you, but I have never insulted you. On the contrary, your posts have degenerated into insults.


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.


Perhaps you should read what you are writing. You accuse me of being a fervant believer in the 'religion' of socialism (not only is this a blatant untruth but it is an oxymoron if you have read Marx), but your paragraphs make very little sense. Your references to an occult (without any evidence) re-inforces this.


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.


The UN is a nest of anti-American thinkers? Very strange as I thought that the UN was composed of all the nations in the world. This must mean that the rest of the world is anti-American. As they are based in New York, maybe they are not just anti-American but un-American? Bring back Joe! Bring back the HUAAC!

[edit on 3-11-2005 by kedfr]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

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.


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.



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.


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?



$419 billion would suggest otherwise. As I said, this is roughly equal to the rest of the world's defence expenditure put together.


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).



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.


regardless of how you interpret the facts, it comes out to the same thing. the countries involved were continually building up their militaries. the US Navy is merely trying to maintain and update what they have. HUGE difference.



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.


i agree completely. however, some things should be taken at face value, such as continually getting caught with our pants down every time we downsize our military. again, you dont have to agree, because you dont have to depend upon our military for diffense of Great Britian. so why dont we just agree to disagree on this aspect of the conversation.



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.


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.



$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'.


again, because you are looking at that number from a country the size of our new england. it is quite reasonable when you consider our huge landmass, shoreline, and economy.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

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.


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%.

Also, can you really tell me that the US Navy's primary purpose is to 'protect' the US shorelines or is it used to patrol the seas & oceans around the world. The US Navy's purpose is more akin to the Royal Navy during the halycon days of the Empire.


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."


I do not take debates personally unless words like ‘ignorance’ are thrown around. However, if no ill-harm was meant then I will not take it as such.


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.


Yes, wealthier members of my family do help out those less fortunate, but we do not live in the 19th century. One shouldn’t have to rely on a system of family-networks to support one another.


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?


I can quite appreciate that the US is a different system but there is fundamental inequality that is aggregated not lessened through government policy. There are huge problems in the UK as regards to the distribution of wealth and poverty but my point is that the more laissez-faire the economic system, the wider the gulf between rich and poor. Moreover, I have firsthand experience of the US. I have lived there and know that if you have a good job with good medical insurance, the US is probably peerless in terms of standard of life. Unfortunately, if you do not, it is probably the harshest nation in the world. Not only does one see all the trappings of wealth in the most consumerist society in the world, but one does not have access to that style of life.

Yes the US is different and yes, there are countless studies and reports available from the UN and elsewhere that illustrate the problems inherent in the US system, in particular relating to health care.

Is there a correlation between the huge amount of money spent on defense (as stated earlier, roughly equal to the rest of the world combined) and being the only Western nation without a state-run medical system? I think so.


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).


I refer you to the statistics provided above.


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.


The War on Terror is a misnomer. Rather scarily, we live in 1984 of continuous war against shadowy figures in far-off lands.

How can one ‘fight’ terrorists? They are not aligned to a state but an ideology – hence traditional forms of war become irrelevant. By invading other countries, through the ‘War on Terror’ it just makes more terrorists. Al-Qaeda (if the conspiracy theorists are wrong and were actually behind 9/11) was born out of an Islamic extremist resentment of the US and Westernisation. By extending the presence in places like Iraq, this will only get worse. The US and the UK have to leave .


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.


This is a grotesquely large figure by any stretch of the imagination. If the US Navy was purely about patrolling its borders, then this figure would be far far less. However, it is not about that – it is do with the exertion of power on a global scale.

Moreover, my horror at these statistics has nothing to do with the size of the UK. The UK is a major economy with a population only a fifth of that of the US and a government’s income/expenditure is only around a third of that of the US.

I am certainly not suggesting the UK is at all perfect – it is very wrong in a number of different matters as regards to taxation and spending. However, that is not my point.

My argument is that the US concentrates too much of its budget on its military to the detriment of other non-domestic areas (primarily welfare-driven areas).

I feel that we are going around and around in circles on this topic and I don’t think that any more debating will get us any further.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
We are not Europeans here..we do not look at Europe as the shining example of all that is worth while. We do not want a Soverign over us no matter how benevolent they try to make it look. Most of us certainly dont look on the UN as a benevolent Soverign looking out for our best intrests.

Furtheremore there is another facet to this buisness. America has had a secret agreement since the Boxer rebellion ...a agreement with England to engage in the protection of Englands position in the world economically..and specifically the intrests of the Crown. By the Crown I mean the City...Olde London. This is not known by the bulk of the Peoples in the world and specifically the bulk of Americans. America took over from France officially during WW1 when France was bled out in the trenchs and went on strike. The French refused to fight. By 1917 America entered the war and slowly helped turn the tide. America was to bleed in lieu of the French.
You can tell this by the manner in which Margret Thatcher came to America after the Invasion of Iraq in the early 1990s. There was a meeting at the Aspen Institute , a british think tank,between the first President Bush and Margret Thatcher. Bush was not intrested in doing much about the invasion of Kuwait until this meeting ...he went in a dove and came out a hawk. Bush was given his marching orders under the century olde agreement.
This is also the agreement Franklin Roosevelt operated under in giving aid to the UK before our involvement in WW2. Same thing with the Lusitania.
My point is that America still bleeds for the investments of others many of who are not American. This is the primary purpose of our military. It is not to protect Americans or American Shores. I have known this for many years now.
We did not invade the Island of Grenada to protect some students at a hospital training college. We invaded Grenada to protect the entrance/exit to the Panama Canal. Nothing will be allowed to threaten this trade route. Much of the trade coming through the canal is not American trade per se...It is financed and insured by non Americans.
America is and has become the boot lackey for this system of investments. We do the dirty work for this buisness when investments are threatened or at risk. Most Americans are totally ignorant about this. They just see the goods on the store racks or shelves..they think nothing about what it takes to get them there. Oil is just such a investment. It is a controlled market with competitors ousted for undercutting the offical price or acting independently. This is the problem in Iraq. How to keep the Iraqi oil off the market and keep competitors out...ie..France and Germany. Competitors...independents. Saddam himself became a independent by taking advantage of the oil for food program through the UN. It was not his WMDs or how many people in Iraq he killed..this doesnt matter in this arena. What does matter on this field is the affecting of someones profits. So many Americans think it is about access to oil. Its about non access to oil. Keeping the country in storage under the guise of a war. Same thing in Vietnam...getting the oil discovered capping it off and then putting the country in storage by putting in a Communist government ..the perfect tool to keep out comptetitors..a Communist government. Iraqi oil will remian mostly off the market until the time is appropriate. The bulk of it will not come here to America where it would tend to drop prices. Most likely it will go to Asia.
This agreement of which I speak is also "hidden esoteric occult" most Americans are totally ignorant of this and think in the "cousins" mentality.
America supports the global doctrine of "Anglo Saxon rule of the world" withouth the knowlege of most Americans. Pan Americanism having been secretly given up years ago.
Judging by the number of Americans and other nations peoples who have died for this dogma...I would say it can be categorized as a religion complete with appropriate sacrafices. Obviosly one with very devout adherants to sacrafice so many on this altar and dogma.
The ancient doctrine of conquerers of which I know is to the effect that the victors get the spoils. This does not seem to be the case with America. Only Americans can be dumb enough to to to war several times over and not bring home any new territorys and spoils. Large quantitys of bodies yes..but not new spoils or territorys. Dont worry ..this is a concept that eludes most Americans now that they have been converted to feel good politics....ie socialist welfare politics. Obviously Americans can afford this kind of losses for someone elese profits and continue on. Most nations would have folded years ago.

Once again..I dont go along with the UN and its positions. It has the same track record as the League of Nations. I also dont go along with this secret agreement between the UK or the Crown...and America. I am more Pan American that internationalist. Internationalist is to me a term for how to get something for nothing.
Do I agree with this war in Iraq ..no..but I also know what the actual beliefs of Islam are ..and what it intends to do. This is becoming obvious in nations like the Netherlands and what happened to this fellow ..Theo van Gogh. I think that was his name.??? Same with Asia today..lots of trouble brewing there. Much of it not being reported here in the States.
Also ..not getting involved will not help the west in this one. This is obvious by the way our previous President did nothing every time we got attacked ...over and over we turned the other cheek...and it got worse and more bold until 9/11. This too is obvious. It will not help the UK to do nothing either. I am sure that after the subway bombings much of it is being downplayed until the time is right for the government to pull out the stops. We hear very little about what is happening concerning this in the UK..not accidental.
Once again ..this is what our military is for ...to support these agreements many of which Americans havent a clue. Many of them not directly supporting Americans but investors who are not American...by treatys/agreements.
If the American Military is weakened in lieu of "welfare programs" you can say good by to the welfare programs too. There will not be enough goods and services in the economies of many nations to support these politically charges issues.
All goods and services in any economy must be paid for by the productive sector of the economy not the government
. What deficit spending and politics does is hide the method of production and expenditures on this system in favor of government issues..mainly how to get re elected by more of this give aways. Pretty much what happened in Ancient Rome ..complete with deficits.
The essence of Capitalism is the ability to contract and obligate to specific performance. Government expenditures ...tend constantlly twords the unproductive...as time goes by to support relection. Deficits and inflation tend to ruin this ability to contract and obligate in the productive market since government does not actually produce any product in the manner of the productive sector of any economy. More and more welfare programs do exactlly this. What you want to do is move the marker to almost 50% of government expenditures to this sector by weakening our military. This would amount to a government subsidity to this sector..much larger than is already present in our economy. Once again ..it will only drive capable medical people out of this occupation and to jobs in which they can make a better living.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

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%.


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.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

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.


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...)

The US accounts for around 28% of the World’s total GDP and yet around 45% of the total World’s military expenditure. This is still a large difference.

Admittedly, the totals of US spending are distorted a by wage disparities between say China and the US (the US would pay its troops a lot more than the Chinese would). Also, there are some nations in the world which are basically militarised totalitarian regimes (ie. North Korea). Even so, the US spends a phenomenal amount of money on its armed forces – even taking into account that it is an extremely wealthy county and therefore investing in new shipments of military hardware will not be as big a burden as for countries with lower GDPs.

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.

In any case, if you consider that US spending on the military accounts for over 50% of all discretionary federal spending (most of the US budget spent on welfare/medicare etc are mandatory and must be paid by law) and the US national deficit is over $500 billion then the hundreds of billion dollars spent on the US military becomes a major area of concern – not least as military spending has increased dramatically over the last few years. While other areas of discretionary federal spending can be trimmed a little, it is the military that is the big problem. Unless the national deficit is brought down (unlikely considering the current administration’s aversion to increasing taxes combined with a desire to increase military spending - Defence spending has increased by a third since 2001). With mandatory expenditure also on the rise, it is not the time for defense spending to be growing out of control.

The US really does need to reign in its military spending. If it doesn’t, its economy will suffer – both through inflation as well as possibly implications for economic growth in the longer-term. Of course, it isn’t just as simple as cutting back Defense spending – the IMF has publicly criticised US fiscal policy and has noted the problem is likely to get worse unless the US makes major changes. For instance, the US will have to increase taxation substantially. Like all Western countries, the US will also have to address the demographic timebomb of the Baby Boomers who reach the age of retirement in just a few years.

Unfortunately, it is not politically prudent to cut defense spending, what with the self-imposed occupation/rebuilding of Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’. Defense spending is likely to continue to go up and up – it is a powerful lobby group and even though traditional military methodology is relatively ineffective against small terrorist groups (this is not a ‘war’ that can be won through conventional weapons) – spending continues to rise.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by kedfr]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Guess my post doesnt get answered then?
Fair enough, I'll judge by actions then, or more precisely no action.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
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



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

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


There are a number of separate - albeit interelated issues.

1. There are both short and long term fiscal problems facing the US at present. In the short term, tax cuts and large increases in military expenditure have contributed to a large national deficit. Military spending has increased by a third since 2001. This is not good fiscal management.

In the long term, the US (like other Western countries) has an aging population will increase pressure on pensions and the medical system. This will increase social welfare provisions in the US system which is geared towards assisting the elderly (ie. through medicare).

2. The huge amount of money spent on the military is not an efficient use of resources. It is bloated both in absolute and relative terms and even if one takes into account the 'war on terror', increasing resources in conventional military hardware/personnel will not be successful. How can invading/occupying other countries in the world lead to anything other than more resentment and make more terrorists?

3. The US is the only country in the world without a state-run medical system. This has long been a travesty and has resulted in a huge number of people (estimated to be around 45 million) without medical insurance. Medicine is like education - they are not consumer goods that one can do without - they are essential not just to the well-being of the individual but to the well-being of the nation as a whole.

Do you think that one should pay for your children's education not through taxation but as in private schools? Should the poorer elements in society not be allowed to go to school because their parents don't have 'education insurance'? Education and medical care are key aspects of any major economy. It is the government's responsibility to take care of its electorate. In any case, from a purely economic perspective, a healthy and education populace leads to a stronger country.

I'm not saying that by transferring the military budget to social welfare programmes all of America's social problems will be solved. However, it is all about the allocation of resources. Over-spending in the military has led to a large public deficit - this fiscal problem has to be addressed. However, the inherent inequalities in the US also have to be addressed.

4. Taxes will have to increase. There are no two ways about this. The utopian ideal of a low taxation economy is just not viable in the modern day.

Yes, military spending has to come down.

Yes, there has to be universal access to medical care in the US - paid for through taxation. Other major economies can cope with state-run medical systems (although each are different) and the US needs to follow suit.

Currently, 15% of America's population does not have medical insurance. This is just not acceptable.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

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...)



and using your source, per dollar GDP, the US is number 27 on the list, with the UK closely behind at number 32.

you can manipulate the numbers all you like to make us look like warmongers, but the real proof is in the numbers you yourself use.



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.



and it spends less than other western nations, making the US an average spender....whats your point?

i notice you have backed off of your rhetoric about how much better european welfare systems are as compared to the US's after all the riots in france. the poor really seem to have it better in europe, dont they?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join