Originally posted by Patroklos
(btw, I am on an 8 hour watch right now and have nothing better to do, so excuse the rant. Feel free to use whatever ammunition you think this gave you
)
(btw, I am on an 8 hour watch right now and have nothing better to do, so excuse the rant. Feel free to use whatever ammunition you think this gave you


Originally posted by Patroklos
1). The figures are right about most of the money bieng used fro the military. As far as procurment (as this is what I do) we have SECURED (that is important in the world of military spending) funds for Carriers, the Littoral Warfare Ships, the converisn of 2 SLBM sub to SLGN subs, The Destroyer program is on track and paid for. Joint Strike Fighter is a go, F-22 was saved, as well as research none of us will know about for some time.
1). The figures are right about most of the money bieng used fro the military. As far as procurment (as this is what I do) we have SECURED (that is important in the world of military spending) funds for Carriers, the Littoral Warfare Ships, the converisn of 2 SLBM sub to SLGN subs, The Destroyer program is on track and paid for. Joint Strike Fighter is a go, F-22 was saved, as well as research none of us will know about for some time.
Originally posted by Patroklos
We know were the money is going, and it is not so much an extra expediture as a restoring the stripped military budget from the Clinton years to its needed level. The current level is no where near the highest it has been.
We know were the money is going, and it is not so much an extra expediture as a restoring the stripped military budget from the Clinton years to its needed level. The current level is no where near the highest it has been.
Also the current spending is the highest real total since the second world war:
US real spending on National Defence:
1940: $28bn
1944: $846bn
1948: $122bn
1952: $316bn
1956: $276bn
1960: $285bn
1964: $303bn
1968: $402bn
1972: $337bn
1976: $307bn
1980: $341bn
1984: $455bn
1988: $515bn
1992: $480bn
1996: $411bn
2000: $402bn
latest: $519bn
Originally posted by Patroklos
2). As far as pissing away money we could be using here in the states, liberals have would piss it away far faster here than Iraq could ever do. They have perfected sink hole spending for 30 years. I find it HILARIOUS that liberal/socialist/eurocom whatever you ares are critisizing a conservative Republican administration for throwing money away on hopeless programs. Talk about hipocrits. BTW, anyone here have any idea how many people are employed building a Destroyer, how about an Aircraft Carrier. Money on the military filters down (not 100%) because guess who we buy the majority of our stuff from.
2). As far as pissing away money we could be using here in the states, liberals have would piss it away far faster here than Iraq could ever do. They have perfected sink hole spending for 30 years. I find it HILARIOUS that liberal/socialist/eurocom whatever you ares are critisizing a conservative Republican administration for throwing money away on hopeless programs. Talk about hipocrits. BTW, anyone here have any idea how many people are employed building a Destroyer, how about an Aircraft Carrier. Money on the military filters down (not 100%) because guess who we buy the majority of our stuff from.
If your main contention is that these programs haven't succeeded in eliminating poverty, well they were not designed to - they are meant to alleviate poverty, just as defence spending is not meant to make a country totally safe (it can't) merely make it more difficult to attack.
Originally posted by Patroklos
3). Anyone also want to guess what it cost to play the Iraq thing the UN way for the last twelve years. We are talking at least one carrier battlegroup In the Persian Gulf at any one time. The airbases and forward deployed aircraft and troops, logistics staff, etc. ect. We easily spent over 200 billion a year maintaining those forces but that was Okay with you all. And occupation (especially when we can't do it right because we have interferance from whiny no nothing punks) takes time, it was expected to take a few years. Despite what you heard from anyone, the military always knew this (bieng obvious and all).
3). Anyone also want to guess what it cost to play the Iraq thing the UN way for the last twelve years. We are talking at least one carrier battlegroup In the Persian Gulf at any one time. The airbases and forward deployed aircraft and troops, logistics staff, etc. ect. We easily spent over 200 billion a year maintaining those forces but that was Okay with you all. And occupation (especially when we can't do it right because we have interferance from whiny no nothing punks) takes time, it was expected to take a few years. Despite what you heard from anyone, the military always knew this (bieng obvious and all).
Total defence spending in the US averaged $370bn a year during 1992-2002 - are you really claiming that over half of defence spending was due to the Iraqi operations?
Originally posted by Patroklos
4). And then there is that whole thing about there being no action that would please most of you. No matter what Bush did we would still be on a similar thread listining to you spout rhetoric fron an idealogical rather than pragmatic standpoint. World sucks, people die, wars happen. Just because most of you posters live in little bubbles of peace and prosperity maintained by the very people you attack so often doesn't mean the outside word works that way.
4). And then there is that whole thing about there being no action that would please most of you. No matter what Bush did we would still be on a similar thread listining to you spout rhetoric fron an idealogical rather than pragmatic standpoint. World sucks, people die, wars happen. Just because most of you posters live in little bubbles of peace and prosperity maintained by the very people you attack so often doesn't mean the outside word works that way.
Originally posted by Patroklos
And a personal note form me. All the Euros who bach at our insistance on being in contol of the Iraq operation. We are the best at this whole military thing. We pay for NATO and the UN anyways, our terms are not outrageous. UN had a plan to deal with Saddam and Iraq, it was stupid and doomed to fail and did. Ours is working, however slowely, get over it. UN did nothing but prove its incompotence, ineptitude, and deadlock over the last decade and now you want to be in charge? Are you kidding. Even when the UN does these operations most of the troops are American, under American commanders by your own mandate anyways. Stupid.
And a personal note form me. All the Euros who bach at our insistance on being in contol of the Iraq operation. We are the best at this whole military thing. We pay for NATO and the UN anyways, our terms are not outrageous. UN had a plan to deal with Saddam and Iraq, it was stupid and doomed to fail and did. Ours is working, however slowely, get over it. UN did nothing but prove its incompotence, ineptitude, and deadlock over the last decade and now you want to be in charge? Are you kidding. Even when the UN does these operations most of the troops are American, under American commanders by your own mandate anyways. Stupid.
The UN plan was to 'contain' Saddam - and as such it was very successful (pity about the ordinary iraqi's though, but few in the west care anyway - just as few care about the lot of those in Burma, North Korea & Zimbabwe).
As for most of the troops being American in the Balkans, that was only true for brief periods - most of the troops were european, indeed in Macedonia the situation was stabilized and the only american troop contribution was half a dozen soldiers (the logistical support is another matter though).
What worries us europeans most is the fact that the US believes it can operate outside of international bodies like the UN - it was just this sort of behaviour that led to the downfall of the League of Nations and the Concert of Europe, and as such eventually led to a major war.
In some ways I agree with you and hope that the US can build a true, functioning, democracy in the middle east but I am sceptical that the American people would be willing to pay the cost in both money and lives - the US government certainly hasn't committed enough troops or money to the Iraq project (as it also failed to do with Afghanistan)
I believe that aggressively spreading democracy would secure a safer future for all of us in the west but I doubt that the nature of democracy enables such long-term thinking with such fuzzy benefits.
Comment