US Military Spending

[Helix]

found some interesting facts on a website.... they don't copy well (being in a table and centered and all that). the page is: www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm (the link didn't work). the table is at the very bottom of the page. any thoughts?

[Bodo Fraggins]

WOW!
Im not sure what the UK govenment spends on their military, but I know the have put and extra £1.75 billion (over $2 billion) towards a war with Iraq.

Sad times we live in!

[jerseydevil]

What makes them more accurate or more believable than anyone else's figures? Just because someone posted this - a pacifist organisation which obviously has an agenda - doesn't make it true.

Even if it is true - do people think we should stop spending on our military? Do people think we should get out of Afganistan? or stop searching for Osama bin Ladin??? We can stop military spending and everything else. What do you think the soviet Union would have done if the US didn't have it's military to keep it in check? What would China do? What would North Korea do?

That group seems to be looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Without the military we'd be either living under nazism or communism. Personally - I'd rather be dead than live under either of them.

Having a military is a the main thing the federal govenment should do. The social programs and all that should be left up to the states.

[Mirahzi]

Are you a Republican, jerseydevil?

In regards to your last comment:

There is more than one way to ensure the safety and well-being of our nation's citizens. Without federal funding for social services, the most needy would be in a very dire situation.
No good can come from a purely military-minded government. Recall Germany during WWI and the reign of the Kaiser Wilhelm: downfall of Germany and severe tragedy in Europe. History has a nasty tendency of repeating itself.

Certainly some of the more liberal groups in this country have been looking through a 'rose colored glass,' as you put it. But the military is not entirely good either. Our armed forces have caused civil and political strife in numerous nations like Korea, Vietnam, and several South American countries.

I'm not advocating for a complete dissolution of the American military, but it is quite evident that ours is by far the largest in the world. Funds would see better use in other areas.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Mirahzi
Are you a Republican, jerseydevil?

I'm a Republitarian. I believe in small federal government. The main purpose of the federal government was to establish treaties, provide common defense and to intervene in interstate conflcts. The social programs should be left to the states. What is good for California, is not necessarily good for Indiana or Alabama or New Jersey. For one thing - the cost of living among these states are very very different. You can not institute blanket programs across such a diverse country.

In regards to your last comment:

There is more than one way to ensure the safety and well-being of our nation's citizens. Without federal funding for social services, the most needy would be in a very dire situation.

The social programs should be left up to the states. They know best how to handle their programs. New Jersey gives $1500 for every $1 it gets back from the federal governemt while others get $1500 for every $1 they give to the federal government. We have the highest per capita income in the country - but we also live in one of the most expensive states in the country. $5 in Mississippi goes a lot farther than $5 in New Jersey - but the federal government treats it all the same.

And how are social programs going to protect us from North Korea or Osama Bin Ladin or in the past - the Soviet Union?

No good can come from a purely military-minded government. Recall Germany during WWI and the reign of the Kaiser Wilhelm: downfall of Germany and severe tragedy in Europe. History has a nasty tendency of repeating itself.

I don't we have a military only mentality ASnd I can't believe you are comparing us to Germany.

You are right though about history having a way of repeating itself - that is why we didn't destroy our armaments after World War II like we did after World War I. Europe got us into TWO world wars within 20 years and we were NOT going to let that happen again.

Certainly some of the more liberal groups in this country have been looking through a 'rose colored glass,' as you put it. But the military is not entirely good either. Our armed forces have caused civil and political strife in numerous nations like Korea, Vietnam, and several South American countries.

Korea and Vietnam were both started by soviet aggression. Vietnam was a French colony which we were DRAGGED into to support the French. They just left after we got involved and it became America's war.

South America was also because Soviet Union was supporting various factions and attempting to take over those countries. We were REACTING to those circumstances. We may have not have always picked the more "ethical" side - but we were battling the Soviet Union during that time. The term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a big part of any countries international policies.

I'm not advocating for a complete dissolution of the American military, but it is quite evident that ours is by far the largest in the world. Funds would see better use in other areas.

There is nothing wrong with having the largest miltary in the world. I personnally would much rather us have the largest military than have a country such as North Korea have it.

Maybe if other countries pulled their weight in military - we wouldn't need as strong a military. but we had years of decline in military spending. Years ago we had a very week military and the armed services personnel hardly make anything.

Without a strong military we wouldn't be enjoying any freedoms we have because of all the countries who have NO problem using their military to take over other countries and attempt to obtain world domination.

Do you really think North Korea would hold off attacking South Korea is the US didn't have large military? Do you think Hussein would have stopped at Kuwait if it wasn't for us? What about the Soviet Union? They were trying to establish footholds in South America

[Baby-K]

On the other hand JD - have you ever considered that perhaps these countries you mention are hostile towards the USA because of the perceived threat posed by the USA & their big millitary force?

No-one likes being told how to run their country and the US is doing a lot of that lately, seems to me that by virtue of their size they believe that the entire world should bend to their wishes (that's bullying)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
On the other hand JD - have you ever considered that perhaps these countries you mention are hostile towards the USA because of the perceived threat posed by the USA & their big millitary force?

Yeah - North Korea invaded South Korea because of the US military. Where did you come up with that? The Soviet Union went in and took over Eastern Europe because of the US military (of course they did that because of the fact they had always been repeatedly attacked from the west and they wanted a buffer zone). But the reason for them wanting to take over the world was??? Do you REALLY honestly think it was because of the US military? And what is your reason for thinking vietnam was caused because of America's might? What would have happened if the US didn't use it's military to stop these countries? What would have happened if the US didn't look down the barrel of the gun with Cuba Missile Crisis and blockade Cuba and force the Soviet Union into removing their weapons?

Did a weak military stand against Hitler work? Dictators don't build up armies to protect them from larger powers - they build up armies to take ADVANTAGE of weaker countries.

No-one likes being told how to run their country and the US is doing a lot of that lately, seems to me that by virtue of their size they believe that the entire world should bend to their wishes (that's bullying)

The only country we are REALLY telling to change is Iraq at this moment.

If we were going to bully - we'd turn all our troops which we have had in Europe all these years against Europe to get what we want. Do you really think anyone could withstand us if we turned all our weaponry against the world?

That's what previous countries have done in the past. Instead we've offered financial aid packages, loans, and everything else. We spend billions to rebuild countries. Maybe there is tough talk going back and forth - but it is far from bullying (at least amonst our allies). Do you think withholding finacial aid from countries is bullying? If so - then you do think they have a RIGHT to EXPECT finacial aid from us? Do we have to give countries finacial aid - or do we only give it to countries who help us with our interests. It's "I'll strach your bgack if you scratch mine". It's the way politics and diplomacy work. If France doesn't want to support us - then why should we support them? If your friends don't support you - do you really go out of your way to support them?

The Turkish Stock Market was bear today because the investors KNOW what Turkey gave up by not supporting the US military. They were offered billions for their help in letting us station troops there. Their parliment met and they voted it down by a very slim margin (even though the majority voted to support it - it needed 5 more votes I think to actually pass). Everyone knows now that war is going to come to Iraq and Turkey is going to have the same problems - but now they won't have the billions in aid the US was offering. It was their choice - now they have to live with it.

By the way - Chirac was doing far more bullying when he told the Eastern European countries that they should have shut up and that they risk their entry into the EU because they support the US.

[Baby-K]

Yeah - North Korea invaded South Korea because of the US military. Where did you come up with that? The Soviet Union went in and took over Eastern Europe because of the US military (of course they did that because of the fact they had always been repeatedly attacked from the west and they wanted a buffer zone). But the reason for them wanting to take over the world was??? Do you REALLY honestly think it was because of the US military? And what is your reason for thinking vietnam was caused because of America's might? What would have happened if the US didn't use it's military to stop these countries? What would have happened if the US didn't look down the barrel of the gun with Cuba Missile Crisis and blockade Cuba and force the Soviet Union into removing their weapons?

You are twisting my words to suit your own argument - I never said any of these events took place because of the US millitary, I said that the antagonistic feelings of these countries towards the US might be caused due to the fact that they perceive the US millitary as a constant threat to them after the events had taken place.

Even the aid packages supplied by the US come with certain demands, so it's a situation of Do as we say or we do not help you out financially etc etc, not only is that bullying it's blackmail. If you're gonna help someone then help then and yeas certain criteria should be met, but it should be restricted to the financials, for instance interest to be paid, the time period allowed for payback etc. In stead the US use their muscle as the largest creditor to the World Bank & 3rd world countries as a bargaining chip to force countries to govern themselves in a way the US deems fit. The countries being helped by the US aren't free to rule themselves as sovereign states - they are dancing to the pipes of a bigger country & find themselves rather in a catch 22 situation - either accept the help & be dictated to by another country or refuse the help & be blown to smithereens by a larger millitary force.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
You are twisting my words to suit your own argument - I never said any of these events took place because of the US millitary, I said that the antagonistic feelings of these countries towards the US might be caused due to the fact that they perceive the US millitary as a constant threat to them after the events had taken place.

Those antagonistic feelings were there LONG before. And a lot of those antogonistic feelings became stronger because we prevented them from taking over other countries. We aren't dictating to South Korea. Of course I didn't see many news organisations hold the pro-american marches in South Korea that took place this weekend - where about 100,000 people marched in support for the US military being there. Just a little while ago they were demonstrating against us being there - now that North Korea is throwing tantrum - they see they need us.

Even the aid packages supplied by the US come with certain demands, so it's a situation of Do as we say or we do not help you out financially etc etc, not only is that bullying it's blackmail. If you're gonna help someone then help then and yeas certain criteria should be met, but it should be restricted to the financials, for instance interest to be paid, the time period allowed for payback etc. In stead the US use their muscle as the largest creditor to the World Bank & 3rd world countries as a bargaining chip to force countries to govern themselves in a way the US deems fit. The countries being helped by the US aren't free to rule themselves as sovereign states - they are dancing to the pipes of a bigger country & find themselves rather in a catch 22 situation - either accept the help & be dictated to by another country or refuse the help & be blown to smithereens by a larger millitary force.

Of course aid packages come with demands. Of course if we're going to spend billions of OUR money - we expect some things in return. And they are free to make their own decisions. We might cut funding to France, we will most likely pull our troops out of Germany - but if either one of them were attacked or threatened - we'd be right there. So your argument that if they don't do what we want that we'd just let them be attacked is false.

If Iraq attampts to attck Turkey - we will still defend them - even though they have not given us permission to use their country for for the northern offensive. They just lost billions of dollars though and it's not our responsibility to give it to them either.

[IronParrot]

jerseydevil:

"Even if it is true - do people think we should stop spending on our military? Do people think we should get out of Afganistan? or stop searching for Osama bin Ladin??? We can stop military spending and everything else. What do you think the soviet Union would have done if the US didn't have it's military to keep it in check? What would China do? What would North Korea do?

That group seems to be looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Without the military we'd be either living under nazism or communism. Personally - I'd rather be dead than live under either of them."

Incorrect. Stalin wasn't interested in conquest and unchecked expansion beyond a Soviet Eastern Europe. He fundamentally disagreed with Marx's philosophical arguments that communism needed to be a worldwide establishment to be feasible. Of course, he didn't exactly implement communism either.

China doesn't have the interest to invade your beloved country, nor does North Korea have the clout. From an administrative perspective, it's impossible.

And you certainly wouldn't see the domestic rise of communism or fascism as a result of having no military, since the U.S. military is exclusively a tool for foreign intervention. If it asserted domestic control, that would be on the road to fascism.

"Having a military is a the main thing the federal govenment should do. The social programs and all that should be left up to the states."

I'm not sure how your federal system is divided up in the States, though here in Canada the provinces don't nearly have as much power as your states do. On the other hand, I don't see how in any case a military presence is a top priority on the federal level. There are still too many domestic issues to be taken care of, such as the economy, which is a national issue if I ever saw one.

You go on to talk about how federal legislation does not take care of the concerns of individual states, nor is it able to, due to the diversity of conditions across the country. True. However, nowhere do I see a connection between your stated benefits of decentralization and the perceived need for the military to be item #1 on the federal agenda.

"South America was also because Soviet Union was supporting various factions and attempting to take over those countries. We were REACTING to those circumstances. We may have not have always picked the more "ethical" side - but we were battling the Soviet Union during that time. The term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a big part of any countries international policies."

I count one: Cuba. Cuba dealt with the Soviets out of economic necessity, since the immense foreign investment from the United States was no longer available once Castro took over.

As for other South American countries: Chile, for instance, democratically elected their socialist government of the early '70s because there was a definite need for land reform within that country. May I remind you that all the U.S. did about that was install the dictator Pinochet in their place.

As for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - this is true in many cases, but it's an Orwellian concept. All that does is further your admission that the U.S. did not always react "ethically", and it still doesn't suffice to justify increased military spending. In fact, it practically defeats your points in this matter.

May I remind you that a decade and a half ago, the U.S. was supporting Afghanistan against the Soviets, and practically installed the Taliban. I think they even made a Rambo movie about it.

"There is nothing wrong with having the largest miltary in the world. I personnally would much rather us have the largest military than have a country such as North Korea have it.

Maybe if other countries pulled their weight in military - we wouldn't need as strong a military. but we had years of decline in military spending. Years ago we had a very week military and the armed services personnel hardly make anything."

First of all, the concept of North Korea having the biggest military in the world is simply ridiculous.

Secondly, to claim that the U.S. ever had a weak military in the past half a century is simply a fallacy stated on relative terms. Yes, funds were cut, but the military was still huge.

"Without a strong military we wouldn't be enjoying any freedoms we have because of all the countries who have NO problem using their military to take over other countries and attempt to obtain world domination."

Please explain your, uh, logic. Also provide the rationale for claiming that these alleged countries are vying for world domination.

[Continued...]

[Baby-K]

Of course aid packages come with demands. Of course if we're going to spend billions of OUR money - we expect some things in return. And they are free to make their own decisions. We might cut funding to France, we will most likely pull our troops out of Germany - but if either one of them were attacked or threatened - we'd be right there. So your argument that if they don't do what we want that we'd just let them be attacked is false.

If the aid is financial then sure you should expect something in return, but the return should be repayment on the finances not a surrender of your democratic right to rule a country according to your principles. Of course the US has the right to refuse the aid, but they don't 'cos that weakens their bargaining position.

As for the countries you mentioned, of course the US will assist them, they stand to gain from it! For instance Turkey would be their shortcut into Iraq (and their oil) also, if they could wangle it that Turkey requests US intervention there would be no need any longer to sit around the table with the UN & justify the call for war on Iraq, hell they'd simply be doing a friend a favour.....wonder if they'd also split the spoils of war with Turkey? France is a member of the Security Council & therefore the US would need their vote when it comes to making decisions re war on Iraq (or any other country seen to threaten the US or "world peace").

[Mirahzi]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The main purpose of the federal government was to establish treaties, provide common defense and to intervene in interstate conflcts. The social programs should be left to the states. What is good for California, is not necessarily good for Indiana or Alabama or New Jersey. For one thing - the cost of living among these states are very very different. You can not institute blanket programs across such a diverse country.

I agree; social programs should be dealt with and appropriated by local governments. But the federal government should still provide monetary support to ease the burden. The federal government was created for those purposes more than two hundred years ago. Surely policies and politics have changed since then. For example, common defence is not as much of a issue as it was in 1776.

And how are social programs going to protect us from North Korea or Osama Bin Ladin or in the past - the Soviet Union?

Obviously they won't be able to shoot down enemy jets, but they're not dropping bombs on people either. Perhaps it would be best if the US focused on its internal conflicts (such as the issue of the working poor) before attempting to exert its influence on other nations.

I don't we have a military only mentality And I can't believe you are comparing us to Germany.

I admit, that was a bit of an exaggeration. Still, you can't deny that President Bush is oiling his war machines. Around the turn of the 19th century, Prussia was also wading in political conflict. Parallels are not too hard to find.

You are right though about history having a way of repeating itself - that is why we didn't destroy our armaments after World War II like we did after World War I. Europe got us into TWO world wars within 20 years and we were NOT going to let that happen again.

Then again, we did almost set off a nuclear apocalypse (with the assistance of Cuba and the Soviet Union).

Korea and Vietnam were both started by soviet aggression. Vietnam was a French colony which we were DRAGGED into to support the French. They just left after we got involved and it became America's war.

Soviet influence maybe, but initially not direct aggression. The USSR pushed to form communist factions but the rest was usually led by local leaders with assistance. If I can recall, the Vietnam War was fought by the North, the South and the Americans. Vietnam was a hopeless case for the French by the time the Americans came, so it was basically an intercession by us to eliminate communism.

South America was also because Soviet Union was supporting various factions and attempting to take over those countries. We were REACTING to those circumstances. We may have not have always picked the more "ethical" side - but we were battling the Soviet Union during that time. The term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a big part of any countries international policies.

I'm afraid I disagree. The South American wars were more about financial politics than about global politics. We sided with rebel groups because governments were attempting to nationalize themselves and get rid of American companies.

There is nothing wrong with having the largest miltary in the world. I personnally would much rather us have the largest military than have a country such as North Korea have it.

Of course there isn't. But the gap between us and Russia (the next highest) is quite substantial. We could afford to trim the budget a bit. In other words, forty-five soldiers will kill a man just as efficiently as fifty.

Maybe if other countries pulled their weight in military - we wouldn't need as strong a military.

How many troops did it take to defeat Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War? A couple hundred thousand? (Forgive me if this is inaccurate.) And this was at a time when the Iraqi military was the largest in the Middle East (and still is, I believe). The combined forces of our European allies could muster a number well above that. They may not be pulling as much weight as we are, but perhaps it's because they don't feel the need to do so, nor the desire.

Without a strong military we wouldn't be enjoying any freedoms we have because of all the countries who have NO problem using their military to take over other countries and attempt to obtain world domination.

Certainly we are very privileged in this our great nation. But who had to suffer in order for us to gain these privileges?

[IronParrot]

To jerseydevil, continued:

On causality, I must concur with Baby-K's point that the United States of America's increasing focus on military action is detrimental to its international reputation.

The U.S. is already being portrayed in some Middle Eastern propaganda (and let's not even go into the European opposition) as the crusading purveyors of a militaristic Christian imperial hegemony. Do you really want to further that image by increasing military spending when you have yet to demonstrate the need for doing so?

I fail to see how the current American military is inadequate. I fail to see how the American military would be inadequate even if it was cut back a little.

I also fail to see where any of these rogue enemy states you've identified are on a platform of world domination. North Korea just seems to want a return to unity with South Korea under cultural pretenses, but dictated by a North Korean politico-economic model. China seems to be more interested in domestic development right now, aside from the Taiwan issue, which is not unlike North Korea. To claim that the Soviet Union, while it existed, was on a path of world conquest is tantamount to saying that the U.S., by participating in the arms race, intended to conquer Eastern Europe. Both the U.S. and the Soviets were asserting dominance over their perceived spheres of influence. It's just that nasty things happened when the U.S. decided Cuba was in its sphere, and the Soviets decided Hungary was in its sphere.

You continue to talk about how the United States' military force is a necessity for global policing. However, you fail to take into account the fact that modern rampant anti-Americanism is also founded on the belief that they have no right to engage in such policing, regardless of whether they think it's the right thing to do (which certainly wasn't the case with Chile or Nicaragua).

And you wonder why we make fun of you guys up north.

If the U.S. is so concerned about the state of the world, maybe they could partake in a bigger role regarding Third World development as well as combating rampant diseases that pose problems globally.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a military at all. All I'm saying is that the current level of funding, let alone continued increase, is completely unjustified.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
To jerseydevil, continued:

On causality, I must concur with Baby-K's point that the United States of America's increasing focus on military action is detrimental to its international reputation.

The U.S. is already being portrayed in some Middle Eastern propaganda (and let's not even go into the European opposition) as the crusading purveyors of a militaristic Christian imperial hegemony. Do you really want to further that image by increasing military spending when you have yet to demonstrate the need for doing so?

I fail to see how the current American military is inadequate. I fail to see how the American military would be inadequate even if it was cut back a little.

I also fail to see where any of these rogue enemy states you've identified are on a platform of world domination. North Korea just seems to want a return to unity with South Korea under cultural pretenses, but dictated by a North Korean politico-economic model. China seems to be more interested in domestic development right now, aside from the Taiwan issue, which is not unlike North Korea. To claim that the Soviet Union, while it existed, was on a path of world conquest is tantamount to saying that the U.S., by participating in the arms race, intended to conquer Eastern Europe. Both the U.S. and the Soviets were asserting dominance over their perceived spheres of influence. It's just that nasty things happened when the U.S. decided Cuba was in its sphere, and the Soviets decided Hungary was in its sphere.

You continue to talk about how the United States' military force is a necessity for global policing. However, you fail to take into account the fact that modern rampant anti-Americanism is also founded on the belief that they have no right to engage in such policing, regardless of whether they think it's the right thing to do (which certainly wasn't the case with Chile or Nicaragua).

And you wonder why we make fun of you guys up north.

If the U.S. is so concerned about the state of the world, maybe they could partake in a bigger role regarding Third World development as well as combating rampant diseases that pose problems globally.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a military at all. All I'm saying is that the current level of funding, let alone continued increase, is completely unjustified.

The thing is it is up to AMERICANS to decide whether our military is over funded or not or how much funding we want to put into it. Why do we have to demonstrate to the world the need for our military? If it wasn't for our military Miloshevic would still be in power. If it wasn't for our military North Korea would be pouring over the border into South Korea and most likely would be launching attacks on Japan. If you think they just want to peacefully rejoin with South Korea - then you are blind. Without the US do you really think that the Soviet Union would have stopped their European expansion with East Germany??

And I agree about China seeming to want to better itself. It is becoming more of a capitalist society with freer markets. The thing is - that is only very recently.

The US has been hated by the Middle East for a long time. We're the "infidels". Yeah we organised an international coalition to push Hussein out of Kuwait - 12 years later we're criticised for protecting a royal regime and letting Kuwait go back to having the government they had. Then people in the same breath say that the US shouldn't be changing the politics of rogue states such as Iraq.

Concerning foreign aid - the US gives more in foreign aid and relief than any other country. I want to know why no one sent in forces to protect the UN relief workers after our soldiers were dragged naked through the streets of Somalia. Why after our military left - did the Un relief workers have to leave? I thought the UN was a world body. Why didn't anyone else send in troops to take our place?

There could be some areas where we could do more. A lot of countries can too. Personnally I feel that we should pull all our troops home - build a missile defense system (seems we need it now with North Korea) and let the world fend for itself. Let Europe deal with the Middle East.

You can make fun of us down here all you want - but I know you're not any better up there in Canada. And we make fun of you guys too.

Canada doesn't need a strong military - Europe doesn't need a strong military. Why? Because they all rely on the US when things get really tough. Yeah - everyone helped out in Afganistan. But it wasn't because the US wasn't able to handle it militarily. We wanted world support for political reasons. To send a message to Al Qaeda that the world was against him. Everyone wants our military used when it serves their purproses - they just don't want OUR military used when it serves the purposes of the UNITED STATES.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
jerseydevil:

Incorrect. Stalin wasn't interested in conquest and unchecked expansion beyond a Soviet Eastern Europe. He fundamentally disagreed with Marx's philosophical arguments that communism needed to be a worldwide establishment to be feasible. Of course, he didn't exactly implement communism either.

You know this? And what about the Soviet Union AFTER Stalin?

China doesn't have the interest to invade your beloved country, nor does North Korea have the clout. From an administrative perspective, it's impossible.

They wouldn't because of oiur military. Do you really think they would think twice if we didn't have our military?

And you certainly wouldn't see the domestic rise of communism or fascism as a result of having no military, since the U.S. military is exclusively a tool for foreign intervention. If it asserted domestic control, that would be on the road to fascism.

Without our military the Soviet Union would not have been kept in check. I didn't see Austria or Poland internally accept facism - I think it was forced upon them by an invading force - namely Germany.

I'm not sure how your federal system is divided up in the States, though here in Canada the provinces don't nearly have as much power as your states do. On the other hand, I don't see how in any case a military presence is a top priority on the federal level. There are still too many domestic issues to be taken care of, such as the economy, which is a national issue if I ever saw one.

Yes - that is one of the great problems with talking to people outside the US and some Americans even - they don't generally understand the role of the states. Or the role of the federal government. The economy, as I have stated is not that bad, it is in a wait and see position because of Iraq. The unemployment rate is less than 6%. It is more of a perception thing. There were a lot of things which have caused the downturn of the economy as far as it went - the dotcom bubble, the 9/11 attacks, the corporate scandals. Now the question of Iraq and North Korea as well as terrorism is keeping the stock market from rebounding. At this point - nothing the government does can have an affect.

[jerseydevil]

You go on to talk about how federal legislation does not take care of the concerns of individual states, nor is it able to, due to the diversity of conditions across the country. True. However, nowhere do I see a connection between your stated benefits of decentralization and the perceived need for the military to be item #1 on the federal agenda.

There were three main things that led to the adoption of the Constitution. One - to provide for the common defense, two - to make treaties and regulate imports and exports, three - to settle disputes between states. The US didn't even have a income tax until 1913. Anything NOT specified in the Constitution is supposed to be left up to the states. The Constitution can not even be changed without 2/3 of the states approving it.

I count one: Cuba. Cuba dealt with the Soviets out of economic necessity, since the immense foreign investment from the United States was no longer available once Castro took over.

The US gave Cuba it's freedom. I think they voted on it the same as Puerto Rico does every couple of years. The Soviet Union then supported the cuban revolution which brought Castro into power. If Kennedy had actually taken a hard stand and not backed out of the Bay of Pigs - the Cubans would not be risking their lives to get to the US.

May I remind you that a decade and a half ago, the U.S. was supporting Afghanistan against the Soviets, and practically installed the Taliban. I think they even made a Rambo movie about it.

We didn't install the Taliban. We had an indirect affect because we pulled out of Afganistan because the we were no longer fighting the Soviets. Yes - a lot of things were done during the Cold Wra to limit Soviet expansion, but now hopefully some of thayt damage can be fixed. I am hoping that we will fix some of the past mistakes. We have fixed the Taliban.

First of all, the concept of North Korea having the biggest military in the world is simply ridiculous.

The only reason that is ridiculous is because they know that we will crush them. If the US was weak - do you really think they'd see any reason not to be even more belligerent and threaten their neighbors?

Secondly, to claim that the U.S. ever had a weak military in the past half a century is simply a fallacy stated on relative terms. Yes, funds were cut, but the military was still huge.

Yes - the military was big - but it was antiquated.

Please explain your, uh, logic. Also provide the rationale for claiming that these alleged countries are vying for world domination.

Why do yuou think they wouldn't be vying for world domination if there was no one to stand up to them? Europe felt Hitler didn't want to rule the world in the beginning either. They went so far as to make deals with him which allowed him to take over Austria and Chzeklslovakia - it wasn't until he attacked Poland that Europe woke up. Soviet Union even made deals with him - until Hitler made one of the greatest mistakes - which was to attack Russia before conquering the rest of Europe first.

[Helix]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We have fixed the Taliban.

Does fixing something normally require bombing and killing?

I have no doubt that the Taliban, and Saddam's gov't, was evil, but I also believe (perhaps I am looking through a rose-colored glass...) it required a war to fix.

Regarding communism.... true Marxist communism has NEVER been practiced. Leaders get too power hungry, and aren't willing to give up their power when it's time.

[markedel]

Well the U.S certainly has a huge military. But the figures given include the national debt payments as entirely military related which may be true-but that's highly doubtful. More important, in my mind, when analyzing such things is looking at military spending as percentage of GDP. In 1999 the U.S spent 3.2% of GDP on military related expenditures. If you compare it to other countries (for instance 19th cent. Germany) you'd probably find the U.S spends less as a percentage of GDP on its military then Germany did, and spends far less as a percentage of GDP then Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and numerous African and Central Asian countries do. If those countries spent the same percentage of GDP on the military as the U.S did then they'd be spending far more on education and health etc.

Besides the gap is in some ways artificial-if the U.S did not devote this small bit of GDP towards military spending the likelihood of global military spending in percentage of Global GDP being lower then it is today seems unlikely. By bearing the burden of defending the Western world (which the U.S does do, even if we disagree how it chooses to do so) then other countries (such as Canada-which our constitution not withstanding is actually far more decentralized then the U.S is, as my politics prof constantly emphasizes) can afford to spend less on their military then they otherwise would. If there isn't a great power other countries will try and grab what they can, a sad fact of history. Great powers also tend to grab too much-another sad fact of history, but having firm powers usually results in less war, not more war.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Helix
Does fixing something normally require bombing and killing?

I have no doubt that the Taliban, and Saddam's gov't, was evil, but I also believe (perhaps I am looking through a rose-colored glass...) it required a war to fix.

Well considering that the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda who attacked and destroyed two 110 story buildings, killed 3,000 people, attempted to fly planes into the White House and Congress - I think yes - military action WAS necessary. They had plenty of chances to give up Bin Ladin.

I can accept people's arguments for not attacking Iraq - even if I think they're veiws are shortsighted - but I can not accept people saying that we should not have gone into Afganistan.

Regarding communism.... true Marxist communism has NEVER been practiced. Leaders get too power hungry, and aren't willing to give up their power when it's time.

To have true communism there are no leaders. Everyone is equal and what one person has everyone has. It's an impossible utopia.

[Helix]

Originally posted by markedel
If there isn't a great power other countries will try and grab what they can, a sad fact of history. Great powers also tend to grab too much-another sad fact of history, but having firm powers usually results in less war, not more war.

Being a great power does not require a military. I believe that we can accomplish so much more internationally with a more peaceful policy - Kim Jong Il (N. Korea) has said that he restarted his country's nuclear program mostly because President Bush labeled North Korea an "axis of evil." If, instead of building an army up on the 38th parallel, the U.S. used that much money and man-power to help with some kind of peacful approach (like doing something for the citizens), don't you think the people would be at least a little bit grateful? I think something like that would do a lot more to diffuse tensions than name-calling and a border arms race. And then if Kim wanted to attack the U.S. or something, the citizens would not be as likely to fall for the propaganda that their government gave them, and wouldn't support the war. Just a thought.

P.S. - While 3.2% is a small percentage, it is a LOT of money.