http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...648112,00.html
US defence spending is comparable to the rest of the world combined i am wondering what people think the implications of this is (a unchallenged superpower wich can do whatever it wants).
Printable View
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...648112,00.html
US defence spending is comparable to the rest of the world combined i am wondering what people think the implications of this is (a unchallenged superpower wich can do whatever it wants).
I hope it never ends.
The richest country in the world, even if it wasn't the USA, is always going to have the largest/most advanced military.
I think the article is complete BS. They keep asking this question:
Quote:
The question the rest of the world is asking itself is: Who is the enemy America is arming itself so against? And why?
...
But against all this even the manufacturers of America's arms - like the aviation giant Lockheed-Martin - have been struggling for a decade or so to define the threat its top-shelf jets will be battling in the skies
It's not that we're preparing to fight any one country, or that these defense spendings are directly related to terrorism...we will perpetually be spending money on research and development to enhance our military. That's how we stay ahead of the game, in the case of any future threats.
I dont think it will.
The only challenges to american supremacy are China and India but i doubt they will ever rival the american military they have large economies but are very poor so they dont have much disposable income. (China 7trillion GDP only 60billion spend on defence, India 3trillion GDP only 19billion spent on defence)
Of course it will end eventually. No government, kingdom, or empire has ever lasted forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by cgod
Having a military does not mean much really, when other countries control the world economy.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
i found this by doing a search, http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/...ad.php?t=15837
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2328
it doesnt look good does it.
goverments spend on their military because otherwise you would have a lot of people out of work, not just in the military but civillian contractors to. Impressing the public with how much they spend on defence and how great their military is, will deflect the publics intrest away from areas where the government is not so good.
Anyway did nobody tell you its quality not quantity ;)
>> am wondering what people think the implications of this is
I think you can see the implications in S11 and Iraq.
No one can fight a conventional war against the US so it has to be a 'terrorist' war.
The US needed a battle ground to stop the 'terrorists' attacking mainland USA (and to lure the 'terrorists' into one fighting in one location).
That battle ground is Iraq.
So it is US servicemen and Iraqi civilians / infastructure that have become the easily reached targets.
China has had the bomb for quite some time now, and that article talks about some ballistic missile system that can be launched from trucks that can reach the United States coast? Well, all I have to say is, about friggin time. I mean, EVERY country in the world is
a) trying to become more developed
b) trying to enhance its military
In my opinion, any article that makes China seem 'bold' is fundamentally flawed. Our relationship always has, and always will be, tentative at best, but I highly doubt China would do anything to upset us. I believe China will not take military action against Taiwan because of possible United States intervention (we recognized an ousted anti-communist Chinese leader in Taiwain as being 'China' because we would not recognize China as a communist state). If anything, the article shows how far behind China is if they are developing these things for the first time. The spin on the article is that China is somehow going to pull ahead of the US militarily, but it seems that just isn't so.
EDIT:
again, I'd just like to point out how these articles spin things. The article keeps speaking of how advanced China is because it is investing in Submarines, training with Russia, developing in-flight refueling, etc. It also says that for the firth year in a row, china has 'increased military spending'. However it's not until the middle of the aritcle that they come forth with this interesting little fact:
Quote:
Even so, China's military spending is only about one-tenth of what the US is due to spend in the coming year.
I think one of the important issues in the article was that although China spent less, it was able to target spending on contingencies for specific conflicts, i.e. Taiwan.
If you try to compare the spending of the US for the same conflict scenarios, the numbers are not so out of the park.
Makes me feel proud to be Chinese :)
Except I don't REALLY want China to take over the world. That could be scary.
And speaking of the situation with Taiwan...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4346283.stm
>>but I highly doubt China would do anything to upset us.
China won't attack the US, it will bankrupt the US.
The current MASSIVE US deficit is proped up by foreign investment, much of it from China.
China has its currency 'pegged' to the US dollar. This must / will change soon.
If China decides to sell all its US investments the US$ will crash (further than it already has). This will be followed by OPEC converting to the Euro. Japan selling its US reserves (retirement funds). So will North Korea......
At this point the US won't be able to afford a war with anyone.
China won't attack the US because they wouldn't be able to win a conventional war against the USA, especially if it isn't on their own soil. Due to its size and relatively advanced military, and the size of its military, it would be the hardest country to defeat overseas however. The only thing that they might really do at this point is take military action against Taiwan. Everything else is basically pretty much leftist propaganda in my opinion.
We are, however, starting to crack down on Iran. Bush basically has said that he's trying to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program diplomatically, but military action is a definite possibility. In that respect, the whole US going bankrupt thing very well may be a reality, lol.
i really dont get the point with mr bush..first it was afghanistan, then it was iraq and now it is supposedly iran..i mean, can't he just shut up and sit in america without interfering in other countries' matters..i mean, ok..iran is developing nuclear weapons, but whats the point? isnt US developing bombs itself?? US invaded iraq to find the WMDs, but were they found?? what about the prisoner abuse in iraq? i guess, he just wants to set up his rule in the middle east countries for the oil they have..and thats what is going to happen if they attack iran as well..IMO the US should stop attacking other countries and try to curb the violence within US rather than doing what it is doing now..attacking others.
What a new and fresh viewpoint. Thank you, ping.
Basically, Bush isn't willing to take the chance that weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of terrorists. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc, are all considered "rogue" countries which are more likely to have affiliations with terrorist organizations. In short, if a terrorist organization got ahold of WMDs, and successfully used it/them, it would make the total human loss incurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sept 11, etc look like a turkey shoot.Quote:
i mean, ok..iran is developing nuclear weapons, but whats the point?
What about it? A few individuals made some poor choices...don't see how this is anybody's fault except the perpetrators.Quote:
what about the prisoner abuse in iraq?
I still fail to see why people believe this. When do we start taking their oil, and how do we do it? Oil production from Iraq has faltered, not increased, and we knew that would likely happen. The only oil we get from Iraq and the middle east is oil we purchase fairly, and we continue to buy it fairly even though it is at increasingly high rates. Granted, I can't say for sure it wasn't about oil, but a lot of people tend to believe this without giving realistic evidence that it's true, except that Iraq happens to have oil. They also happen to have gold, platinum, and a plethor of other precious resources that never get mentioned.Quote:
i guess, he just wants to set up his rule in the middle east countries for the oil they have
I strongly disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. I take a pro military stance and consider myself a conservative democrat, if that makes any sense. However, Bush believes he is doing the right thing by preventing these countries from developing weapons programs. It wasn't about oil or any of the Michael Moore leftist conspiracy theories. Sept 11 changed our world. I'm open to strong counter arguments.Quote:
IMO the US should stop attacking other countries and try to curb the violence within US rather than doing what it is doing now..attacking others.
sep 11 did change everyones world, i have relatives staying in the US and trust me we were as much worried about such attacks after 9/11 as people in the US were..but that does not qualify as an excuse to invade iraq..its a war against terrorism..and not against individual dictators like saddam hussien..i am not a fan of mr. hussien, but i personally think that a war never has any positive outcome..irrespective of who wins the war, both sides are losers..the US already has a nice military and cool weapons..so i guess, increasing the defense spendings does not help much..instead, spend money on development, and that wil benefit everyone. As for the WMDs, i dont think that any were found in iraq, and Hans blix, the person sent by i guess, the UN, also said that there were none in iraq, so i dont get the logic in attacking iraq..and im sure no one except Bush does.. :)
First off I'd like to thank you for reading my opinions and carefully considering them without bashing or insulting me. English must be a second language, making this all the more difficult for you, so my hat goes off to you.
All of what you are asking was explained in my post above, so all I am going to do is quote myself.
To answer this question by you:
I quote myself from the post above:Quote:
the UN, also said that there were none in iraq, so i dont get the logic in attacking iraq..and im sure no one except Bush does..
It really is that simple.Quote:
Basically, Bush isn't willing to take the chance that weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of terrorists. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc, are all considered "rogue" countries which are more likely to have affiliations with terrorist organizations. In short, if a terrorist organization got ahold of WMDs, and successfully used it/them, it would make the total human loss incurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sept 11, etc look like a turkey shoot.
im perfectly fine with understanding english, thank you.Quote:
First off I'd like to thank you for reading my opinions and carefully considering them without bashing or insulting me. English must be a second language, making this all the more difficult for you, so my hat goes off to you.
All of what you are asking was explained in my post above, so all I am going to do is quote myself.
as far as the WMDs are concerned, they need to exist, you just cant go after someone and attack him with the thought in mind that the other person has WMDs..that is as if i say..."i think darkness is going to give me neg reps, so i feel that he is a threat, so i wanna kill him" :) lol, just kiddin, but thats what mr. bush's approach seems to be right now..
If the US did not want Sadam to have WMD the US should not have sold them to him. (see Reigle Senate Report on Gulf War Syndrome). Gulf war syndrome being chronic low level radiation poisoning from DU ammo.
Or the US should have stopped selling WMD to Sadam when he used them on Habjal in 1988.
One thing the US media fails to mention is these WMD have a short shelf life.
Sarin is two months.
Iraqi Anthrax about six months.
Any stock-piles of these WMD were long past any military use before the US attacked.
The US also uses banned WMD in Iraq (cluster and napalm bombs).
As to the POW abuse....
It was not a few individuals acting without orders.
Look at the people returned from Camp X-Ray. All say they were tortured.
Look at the POW abuse photos from Abu Garib. See the number of people in the photos.
Then remember that there are 1500+ images (plus video). No one can take that amount of photos in a high security prison anywhere without attracting attention.
The problem is the media. It trusted the Bush admin and never questioned the data (intel). In turn GWB never questioned the Iraqi defectors (Chalabi) because they were telling them what the admin wanted to hear.
CNN had two different news reports, one for the US and one for the rest of the world. The US version never mentioned the bad stuff........
China is the one that relies on US/EU investment not america if thier was a China/US conflict China would collapse because they rely on exporting products overseas at cheap prices the US has 50% of world naval power this would mean that China would have no way of selling it's goods and its economy would callapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by novacain
Assuming it was our fault that they had WMDs, are you saying that because it was our fault that they had them we should not have prevented Saddam from developing them, even if our commander in chief thought that by doing so would put the country at risk.Quote:
If the US did not want Sadam to have WMD the US should not have sold them to him. (see Reigle Senate Report on Gulf War Syndrome). Gulf war syndrome being chronic low level radiation poisoning from DU ammo.
We also have a nuclear weapons. The only WMDs in Iraq right now are unexploded Tomahawk missiles from the initial invasion, lol.Quote:
The US also uses banned WMD in Iraq (cluster and napalm bombs).
Quote:
As to the POW abuse....
It was not a few individuals acting without orders.
Look at the people returned from Camp X-Ray. All say they were tortured.
Something to support statements like these would help everybody out. If you read the news, no matter how much 'spin' is put on the article, it admits that all investigations have not been able to prove that the soldiers were under order.
This is what I mean:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html
Umm, I don't know where you live, but the media always has an anti-bush leftist spin on just about everything bush says or does in the united states.Quote:
The problem is the media. It trusted the Bush admin and never questioned the data (intel). In turn GWB never questioned the Iraqi defectors (Chalabi) because they were telling them what the admin wanted to hear.
CNN had two different news reports, one for the US and one for the rest of the world. The US version never mentioned the bad stuff........
Novacain I think your arguments weren't as strong as PINGs. The reason being, PING stuck soley with opinions or relied on well-known facts, as did I (for the most part, at least I tried to). You, on the other hand, tend to delve deeper and give what seems to be anecdotal proof to support your viewpoints...it just makes things less cohesive. You may be somewhat right with some of the things you've stated, but unless you can at least give a link from a reputable source when you talk about less-known facts, a lot of what you say just seems invalid to me.
As an aside, you did tell me to see at least one piece of external information, is this what you were referring to by the Reigle report on Gulf War Syndrome? And have you actually read the whole thing? Perhaps you should send a link of exactly what you want me to read, so I'm sure it's what you are referring to.
http://members.aol.com/vetcenter/reigle.htm
Read these;
Reigle report
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html
FOX propaganda
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._03_Report.pdf
FOX, the news does not have to be the truth, even when our viewers lives are at stake
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/news/fox.htm
Trust the International Red Cross on POW abuse?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...&SearchMax=100
Or MSNBC?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/
"The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war."
Why is it that Dan Rather was fired for an incorrect story (against GWB in which the facts were correct but the docs forged) but no one has been fired for claiming that Iraq had WMD, tried to buy uranium from Niger ect (in which the facts were incorrect)?
Dan Rather wasn't fired. He resigned. But what happend wasn't Dan Rather's fault. The people under him didn't do enough fact checking, and at least one of them was fired.Quote:
Why is it that Dan Rather was fired for an incorrect story (against GWB in which the facts were correct but the docs forged) but no one has been fired for claiming that Iraq had
Pain and suffering doesn't become torture until lasting harm is done(including pschological and physical). I believe the UN uses this definition. My bet is the military forces these people to stay awake for hours on end or do a little water dunking, none of which compare to the harm these people have done to innocent citizens. Not that I believe in eye-for-an-eye, but if mildly harming a criminal saves human life, then why shouldn't we do so? It's self-defence.
Thanks for posting sources Novacain, I'll try looking into those. As an aside.
EDIT:
I've read a substantial portion of the PIPA pdf. Seems interesting, and seems like a reputable source. I don't believe I ever had the mentioned misconceptions about the war, and I actually just started watching FOX in part because I think it's more fair than other news organizations.
This is not supposed to sound like an attack(and hopefully not perceived as one), but why would you think fox is any more fair than the other news organizations. I've watched many shows which reside there and oftentimes I have to turn it off because instead of answering questions I hear tyrades or slick ways of avoiding questions. Granted I have no proof, and other stations do this as well... but honestly is it safe to say fox is the most reliable? I've found them sometimes very fair, and sometimes extremely unfair, and extremely biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkness
I suppose it would do well to say I am neither democrat nor republican, more of a blend in many ways.
I suppose my final question would be, why did we not take out North Korea first? We do indeed know and have proof they have nuclear capabilities. Plus their leader is a lot loopier than Saddam is/was...
We didn't go after North Korea because we went after Iraq.
People avoiding questions is universal.
Watch the O'Reilly show. Sure, he's an old bag who falls right of center, and yes he states his opinions quite clearly, but if you watch you'll find he forces the people he is interviewing to answer the questions instead of avoiding them. That's why I like his show more than any other talk show. If he disagrees, he'll tell you, but it's a no-spin zone.
The thing I don't like about the anti-Bush people is that they come up with ample amount of criticism without offering better alternatives. I don't think a liberal president is what this country needs right now, and I actually wish I hadn't voted for Kerry. Yes, I was against the Iraq war, but I actually think Bush is the President this country needs right now.
O'reilly is a small part of the overall network, and at times he has good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkness
That is true, people avoiding questions IS universal, hence my point. What I am trying to ask, and not attack you(mind you), is that they all do that, so why is fox any better than the rest?
To your statment, we didn't go after N.K. because we went after Iraq is true yes, but why?
Really I am not trying to be difficult, I am asking for myself, not to attack or be difficult really :)
>>Pain and suffering doesn't become torture until lasting harm is done
>>but if mildly harming a criminal saves human life, then why shouldn't we do so? It's self-defence.
I happen to disagree with that definition of torture (just ask any little brother, hah), but in any case - whose human lives are being saved here? I haven't read the articles myself, but it doesn't seem logical that torturing someone (or just dunking them in water, keeping them awake for long periods of time etc) will benefit anybody in any way. Unless, I guess, you're trying to get info from them - but someone who's half dead from exhaustion won't give entirely coherent answers either. And, IMO, it'll just tick off the opponents and incite them to kill even more of your people.
The problem with ‘stress interviewing’ is that people will tell you anything to get you to stop…..
The US sends people to other countries to get them tortured. The Australian M Habib was sent (illegally) from Pakistan to Egypt to be tortured. There he told how he was going to fly a plane in 911, trained the hijackers in Karate ect...
He has no flight experience or martial arts training however. He is just some muppet with a big mouth who annoyed some Pakistani military officials. For that he got 3 years in Gitmo….
EDIT:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...3/s1326300.htm
I worry that the US disregarding these conventions (Geneva, no torture, right to a trial) will have a serious impact on those in the 'Coalition of the Willing' (or UN forces) captured in future engagements.
How do you condemn them for torture now?
>>Watch the O'Reilly show. Sure, he's an old bag who falls right of center, and yes he states his opinions quite clearly,
And LOUDLY.
>>but if you watch you'll find he forces the people he is interviewing to answer the questions instead of avoiding them.
But does not allow people to give answers he disagrees with. Look at the incident with the son of a 911 victim, Glick I think.
O'Reilly shouted him down when he tried to say that he did not agree with attacking Iraq and that the US supplied Osama Bin Laden (when he was fighting the USSR).
Later O'Reilly defamed Glick (by saying Glick said GWB supported OBL).
Glick can not sue as everybody knows O'Reilly is a pathological liar and therefore is immune did not know what he said was untrue......
>>but it's a no-spin zone.
LOL! All media is spun. That’s why no one believes main stream media anymore……
What do you mean? the so called 'Coalition of the willing' forces that are captured are executed (brutally) anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by novacain
Habib was sent to egypt because he coudent keep his mouth shut and what the heck was he doing their anyway?