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.

 

Bush Arms Buildup Rivals Hitler and Stalin

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
How much is Russia spending on their military build-up, with their huge oil profits?? I can bet you they will be rolling out new TU-160's left and right! And the U.S. very well knows that. The cold war really never completely "thawed", as most people seem to think. Yes our relations are ok, but not perfect. If they where I probably wouldn't be seeing the E4's and E6's flying around almost daily in Omaha.




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


But I didn't call him any names at all. I did say that his claim was hilarious and childish, but I didn't say anything about him. I just think that he posted immature thoughts that weren't properly developed, especially annoying since I gave a slightly thorough rebuttal.

I addressed every point, and in response, he simply called me a "bush apologist" even though I made it explicitly clear that I didn't as much as support the man. Like an ignoramus, he labeled me as one of "them" for the mere fact that I didn't agree with his immature, alarmist, anger-ridden speech the seems to be motivated more by a sensationalist drive against the status quo than a thought-out analysis of the facts.

I do not appreciate being labeled as a partisan, especially when I make it explicitly clear that I do not stand on that side.


reply to post by Threadfall
 


First off, you can call me John. This alias, if you even want to call it that, is really a relic from ages ago. Additionally, I appreciate that you made it clear that I wasn't jumping on the pro-Bush bandwagon as much as presenting a logical and analytical viewpoint, but I never really did say anything about our military machine.
Though I am dismayed at how easily so much of our military has fallen into disrepair (grounded fighter wings and so on).

Also, I don't think you can fairly call anything an American Empire at the moment. We do certainly, and through no accident, exert a powerful influence on the world, including through military intervention, but I don't think becoming or maintaining an empire in the classical sense is the goal. Though maintaining our status as a superpower is.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Johnmike]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
When you look at the technology that has been developed by the military and filtered into the mainstream market place, to me it seems to be a logical investment when you consider the alternative.

My mind is wide open to logical alternatives, but what kills me about the liberal mindset is they seem to be able to tell us exactly what's wrong without offering a viable remedy. So, pull the military back to our shores, stop investing in weapons, etc... and build bridges? Should we go back to using a flint-lock long gun and bayonette? Do the men and women charged with the duty of protecting our freedom not deserve the very best our country can offer when they are the ones in harms way? (regardless of who put them there)

Or how about this, what if our country posessed a military with such cutting edge weapons, systems, and the brave men and women behind them that made other countries think twice about waging war (Moammar Khadafi and Libya) then we have deterred war without ever firing a shot. Wouldn't that be great?

Like I said, my mind is wide open to logical alternatives.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mthalman
How much is Russia spending on their military build-up, with their huge oil profits?? I can bet you they will be rolling out new TU-160's left and right! And the U.S. very well knows that. The cold war really never completely "thawed", as most people seem to think. Yes our relations are ok, but not perfect. If they where I probably wouldn't be seeing the E4's and E6's flying around almost daily in Omaha.


The US spends more on military research and development ($70.3B) which is more than russias entire military budget. This does not even count the unknown amounts of the tens of billions being spent in the black budget programs the US military has. Still, military spending makes up 5-6% of US GDP, we could spend far more than we currently do...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Bush Arms Buildup Rivals Hitler and Stalin


www.opednews.com

The relentless increases in Pentagon spending President Bush has pushed through since taking office recall the actions of Hitler and Stalin prior to the outbreak of World War Two.

Both European dictators escalated their war machines and both dictators showed little concern when their domestic economies and workers’ incomes suffered as a result.

(visit the link for the full news article)


What arms build up?

The Air Force has 31% less aircraft now than in 1992. And they are 41% older.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


What is wrong with you Bush haters? An Arms buildup? Do you even know what you are talking about? China has tripled their budget in the last 5 years. They are commisioning 3 carriers in the next 2 years. Their standing army is doubled in size. We on the other hand have 100K more troops in the past 8 years. Yeah, arms buildup.

Look at what Reagan did with the military. THAT is an arms build-up! AND IT WORKED!

Go back to your Bush-haters clubs and find some more talking poits.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nunny
 


Let's get real ok





posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo, How do the dollars or percentages for each country compare to that country's GNP? It would be helpful to know so I can put the data into perspective.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just as long as
I'm the dictator...... George W Bush.
well Mr.President perception is reality.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Leo , do you have links for Eisenhower comments?

Totally agree with the comment. Studying Nazi Germany between the wars its instructive to note that a growing right wing pushed military adjenda & fear mongering at ever step of the way. They invested in revisionist war literature that glorified Kaisers war and ignored Germanys responsiblities make them out to be victimised.

The rank and file Germans bought left wing books like "All quite on the Western Front" at a rate of 4:1 over the Revisionist literature, but it was to little avail. As the increasingly desperate economic situation gripped the peoples , their resistance to warmongering and luntic fringe racial hatred eroded and people felt increasingly afraid of 'enemied of the state', both inside and out side the country....they called them 'Reich fiend'. This was deliberately whipped up by the leadership and was exactly what the nazi siezed on to get into power just at the point when the people were most vulnerable.

The parrallels with America today and the media political influence on the population is horribly close to nazi effects. This should come as little surprise. Guess what Hitlers inspiration for his propaganda in "Mien Kampf" and later? American advertising.

Its curious to note the first tentative steps to change Germanies course towards rearmament & war came from the liberal democrates under the Streisemann regime , four years before the nazi got into power.

By the time Hitler was reaching his stride in the late 1930s , an entire generation of kids had grown up with the notion that a militarised Germany to 'right the wrongs of the Treaty of Versaillies', was the only way out of their desperate situation.

Armaments for armaments sake is nothing short of retarded.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by psteel]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by mthalman
How much is Russia spending on their military build-up, with their huge oil profits?? I can bet you they will be rolling out new TU-160's left and right! And the U.S. very well knows that. The cold war really never completely "thawed", as most people seem to think. Yes our relations are ok, but not perfect. If they where I probably wouldn't be seeing the E4's and E6's flying around almost daily in Omaha.


The US spends more on military research and development ($70.3B) which is more than Russia's entire military budget. This does not even count the unknown amounts of the tens of billions being spent in the black budget programs the US military has. Still, military spending makes up 5-6% of US GDP, we could spend far more than we currently do...


I thought I recently read somewhere that Russia is now spending 16% of their GNP on military programs, and that to doesn't count for their "black programs." And China is also spending a large part of their GNP on military build-up. We have a lot of old aircraft that have been in service since the 50's. I would say that has been an excellent return on investment. Some of the aircraft are slated for retirement, (hopefully not the B-52 though, best plane out there). It's unfortunate that we have to spend so much of our GNP. But I personally believe we are in a new arms race, and we didn't start it. Also, I think if we put larger tariffs on imports from countries like China, it would force them to spend less on their military and provide the U.S. with more revenue, which I would hope would go to other things besides the military. But I know that for example U.S. Stratcom has to try to guess what Russia and China's long-term intentions our and we have to be able to match them and keep our "deterrents" up to date. And lastly, we have been caught twice "with our pants down" Pearl harbor and 9/11, I don't think the U.S. wants to go to "three stirkes and where out!" and that takes a ton of money.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


Here is the link.

The site provides great data on world military spending.

However the chart I posted is in US dollars the total (known) spending on armaments by all nations of the world. As is clearly pointed out in the chart the US outspends all by far.

In my earlier posts I quoted a man I admire Dwight Eisehower. A man (a republican to boot) who knows all to well the true costs of war.

Eisenhower the Supreme Allied Commander in WWII said this:



This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.


I think Ike knew what we would be facing in this modern world and tried his best to warn us.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nunny
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


What is wrong with you Bush haters? An Arms buildup? Do you even know what you are talking about? China has tripled their budget in the last 5 years. They are commisioning 3 carriers in the next 2 years. Their standing army is doubled in size. We on the other hand have 100K more troops in the past 8 years. Yeah, arms buildup.

Look at what Reagan did with the military. THAT is an arms build-up! AND IT WORKED!

Go back to your Bush-haters clubs and find some more talking poits.



I personally think we need more Reagan's and Curtis LeMays out there. The Russians are currently almost weekly testing our defensive and detection abilities, with relative impunity. But when I hear stories that Russia has penetrated Canadian airspace, without being detected. That makes me wonder if we are getting complacent again!



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Hitler built up Germany's military prior to ww2, but Stalin did not build up USSR's military prior to WW2. Why do you think it took so long for the USSR to start winning....

Whoever wrote that article, clearly has a very, very flawed recount of history.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
Hitler built up Germany's military prior to ww2, but Stalin did not build up USSR's military prior to WW2. Why do you think it took so long for the USSR to start winning....

Whoever wrote that article, clearly has a very, very flawed recount of history.


Stalin was rearming Russia since the mid 1930s as was Britain and France. The Western Allies geared their rearmament drive to peak in 1940. Financially it would have been difficult to fund this rearmament beyond 1940 without emergency powers, which meant war.


While Hitler may have been rearming since 1933 and previous regimes before that, they had much much further to go before they were a threat, due to the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. Truth is most European powers welcomed Germans rearmament since they saw it as a bulwark against Soviet expansions aims, which were overtly stated since 1919. Hitler’s expansionist aims were not overtly stated and seen as mostly for internal consumption. It wasn't really until Munich, that Hitler’s true intentions became crystal clear; even then it was not widely appreciated. Most Americans were dead set against involvement in the war, until British propaganda through the "Battle of Britain" convinced them otherwise.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
Hitler built up Germany's military prior to ww2, but Stalin did not build up USSR's military prior to WW2. Why do you think it took so long for the USSR to start winning....

Whoever wrote that article, clearly has a very, very flawed recount of history.


Absolutely correct. Stalin was either in denial that the Germans where coming or actually believed Hitlers non aggressive pact. Only after finally realizing that his country was about to be taken over, did he start his war machine. In which he did an incredible job creating so many tanks, aircraft,etc., in such a short period of time.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mthalman

Originally posted by Manincloak
Hitler built up Germany's military prior to ww2, but Stalin did not build up USSR's military prior to WW2. Why do you think it took so long for the USSR to start winning....

Whoever wrote that article, clearly has a very, very flawed recount of history.


Absolutely correct. Stalin was either in denial that the Germans where coming or actually believed Hitlers non aggressive pact. Only after finally realizing that his country was about to be taken over, did he start his war machine. In which he did an incredible job creating so many tanks, aircraft,etc., in such a short period of time.


Stalin saw war coming back in the mid 1930s. He had american industrialist to build the largest tractor works in the world and run it for several years before they learned the methods and took over. Then they stole the blue prints and made a dozen clone factories just in time for war. Had that not happened they would never have been able to leap from 2800 tanks per year to 17,000 tanks. You can only do this if you already have the factories and plans inplace ahead of time.

It takes 4-5 years to convert to war economy. Chamberlain started that process in 1935 and predicted they would be ready by 1940. America had long set up such mechanisms and agreements, while Germany didn't even start until after the war began. This is why it took until 1943/44 before their total war economy finally kicked in. By then of course it was too late and Germany was essentially defeated, the moment the allies landed in France while Soviet summer campaigns were in full swing in the east.

You can see that in production increases over 4 years from just before the war begins. For the USA production raises 16: 1 in planes while the UK is more like 8:1 increase. Germany is only 3:1 while Japan is 6:1 ...although both Japan and the USA had more time to prepare for war.

In Artillery USSR increased production 10 fold over 2 years , while the USA increased 20 times. Contrast this with Germany increase of 2.5 fold over the same period.

People should understand that even with the so called massive nazi build up , when the war started the Germans were still out numbered 5:1 in planes ; 11:1 in tanks and 8:1 in warships & 2-3:1 in artillery & troops... and thats just with the European allies.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by psteel]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
You need to learn how to use the quote tags when replying. Fix your post and I will respond to your points.

So what illegal war was that? You mean the one that Congress voted for and approved? Illegal by whose law?

So when were the elections called off? When did we become a dictatorship? Just because you want to think that is happening doesn't make it true.

You seem to be stuck in the if you tell a lie long enough it becomes true category. If the elections are called off, then I will buy into your 'claim' about the US and our style of Govt. Until then, just empty words.

Now are you really trying to say that clinton didn't give China state secrets? I think you need to go educate yourself about bubba and his treason when it comes to China.

You can cry all about the anti-American bias, but it is there and it exists.


Illegal by CONSTITUTIONAL law.America is not an Empire.Not yet.Its still a republic.Its Illegal by international law and the weapons used in Iraq, depleted uranium shells,should never have been used because of proximity to civilians.Congress did not declare war on Iraq therefore the fact that Congress passed it doesnt make it right.Congress has to officially without a doubt declare war for any war to be legal according to the constitution.
The only anti-american bias is in your mind that youve created.Other anti-american sentiment stems from the fact we invaded someones homeland.You know as well as i that if the U.S was ever occupied you would do the same thing those resistance groups are doing in Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join