This Guy Restores Some Of My Optimism

[Comrade Tribune]

But remember -- and take heart -- it costs America $9 million for every "Taliban/ Terrorist" killed and about $3 million for every "Taliban/ Terrorist" captured. At this rate, the United States can not continue this war effort throughout the world. At the end of Bush's proposed 20 year "anti-terrorist war," for example, the United States would be one quadrillion dollars in debt. By 2021, 92% of the gross domestic product of the United States would be consumed in debt service, whereupon the United States would effectively become a third world nation. The country is literally falling apart and Bush is making it happen.

Interesting article. Rest of it is here:

http://www.almartinraw.com/column48.html

[monolith94]

I don't think that there are that many terrorists, and certainly not that many who are also able to fly planes into buildings...

:joy: smiley needed

Stefu, can you whip ap a euphoria smiley?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by monolith94
I don't think that there are that many terrorists, and certainly not that many who are also able to fly planes into buildings...

Of course not, but we are talking about 'terrorists' here, not terrorists.

If it was about real terrorists, then where do Iran, Iraq and North Korea come into it?

[reds4ever]

how much does it work out per innocent civilion?

[DaShi]

I wonder how you would feel, if it was your nation who was attacked. How much time would you give your allies until they turned their backs on you? I can name one who hasn't and wouldn't.

[H Tower]

that makes you feel better? maybe if you think it will force bush to stop eventually, other wise...

[faded glory]

This is obvouisly a load a crap



The cost of fuel, deployments, laser-guided bombs, and maintence has only run up a mere 4 billion dollar tab. To a Government which rakes in an average of 2.7 trillion a year. Thats nothing...


Compare that to Gulf war (80 billion) and Vietnam (600 billion) It doesnt sound like a lot of truth.

But bye all means, feel free to continue making things up

[Bereta_Eder]

Roman military overstretch hihihihi anybody knows what that means?


Really the new US is unilateralist. Thus:


flexible coalitions. NATO takes the back sit. US decides, US does.

The problem is that yes financially it will be destroyed if it keeps going at this rate. That's why it's pushing Europe to beef up our army (well, Greece is already beefed up ) so the US can delegate some matters to the EU and take some of the burden off its back.

The EU says «social welfare state first», the US says «build up your army for Christ sake» etc etc

[H Tower]

Originally posted by paiktis22
US says «build up your army for Christ sake» etc etc

actually that would be for our sake

[faded glory]

I love it when they pass over/completely ignore old FG's facts.....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Roman military overstretch hihihihi anybody knows what that means?

yeah ive read paul kennedy ("rise and fall of the great powers")
Overstretch was a real threat to US in the 1980's when we were running huge budget deficits, we were losing international economic competitiveness, we had growing infrastructure problems, and we were maintaining/expanding strategicv commitments. But Reagan (and the rest of us) lucked out, and the USSR, whose overstretch was much worse, collapsed first.

Since then we have reduced defense expenditures as share of GNP dramatically, had over a decade of dramatic economic growth, and improved our political/diplomatic relations in many parts of the globe. The US at the end of the "good years", which ran from November 1989 (fall of Berlin Wall) to 9-11-01 (fall of twin towers) substantially improved its power potential, focusing on a much improved budget and economic picture (relative to 1989)

The war on terrorism presents many challenges, but we do not yet face anything close to overstretch. We have elements of 2 army divisions in afganistan/central asia (101st airborne in the former, 10th mountain in the latter), and some special ops. Marines have left afgan, are now available for elsewhere, such as Somalia or Yemen. 650 special ops in Philipines seems as many as that govt is willing to take. We still have a peacetime deployment in South Korea, and a relaitvely small (by cold war standards) deployment in western europe, and some peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo. This leaves most of US forces at home, some in homeland defense but most available.
And this is with only limited mobilization of reserves, with no prospect of conscription, or even of stepped up military recruiting, which should be easy given current recession. Yes we're going back into deficits, but this is result of recession and Bush tax cuts, and even so are manageable. We certainly appreciate our allies' help, from stepped up roles Bosnia, to Brit/German/Canadian/Aussie roles in Afgan, to NATO AWACS in US homeland defense. But we are not nearly in the position we were in the mid-80's, when every European division mattered
to give us a chance of stopping the Soviets on the central front without nukes.

There is certainly a chance of overstretch, or something approaching it, if we were to go after Iraq AND Iran AND North Korea while still dealing with Al qaeeda in Afgan and elsewhere, which would also lose us most allied support. However Powell and Rumsfield and Rice are not stupid (whatever you think of their
boss) and they seem determined to take things sequentially. They have no intention of taking on N. Korea, that was included in the Bush speech for political correctness, to avoid only naming Muslim countries. Iran IS a real problem, but there is political ferment there, and our strategy is play into that, establish a successful pro-wetern regime in Afganistan, maybe later in Iraq, as models for Iran. Only real chance of expanding war beyond al qaeeda is Iraq, and tha wont be for a while, until we have A. gotten further along in war on Al Qaeeda B. Built up Iraqi National Congress into more credible opposition C. Lacunched diplomatic offensive for renewed inspections, "smart" sanctions D. Resolved issues with Turkey, Saudi about future shape of Iraq, assuring them that role for Kurds and Shiites in new govt wont lead to independence for either group.

LOTM

[Bereta_Eder]

We need to look at concrete and a vast number of statistics to determine the level of (if any) military overstretch of the US at the present.

As quick pointers your defence spending is now at 12% of your GDP (whereas Greece's for example is at 6.4% and is already the highest in western Europe) and your internal defence expediture has doubled (although this is understandably not a clear indice since you had almost no need for internal defence before).

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

yeah ive read paul kennedy ("rise and fall of the great powers")
Overstretch was a real threat to US in the 1980's when we were running huge budget deficits, we were losing international economic competitiveness, we had growing infrastructure problems, and we were maintaining/expanding strategicv commitments. But Reagan (and the rest of us) lucked out, and the USSR, whose overstretch was much worse, collapsed first.

LOTM

Don't mean to set aside such a lengthy analysis but to me it's just so simple: geography.

All other superpowers have never had the benefit of being as isolated and relatively independent. We are still dependent on oil, but it is a temporary and unnecessary source of energy and the U.S. and other nations *will* find other sources for the future when oil starts to run out.

Who do have as our neighbors? Canada and Mexico. That's it.

Britain and Japan are also fortunate to have their geographical isolation, but they are/were too small (area and population) to sustain long-term independence as a superpower.

And also, I don't think it was a matter of luck as it was the inevitable economic failure of communism/socialist or however you want to define their form of government. China is fortunate in that they are learning from those mistakes and allowing a gradual capitalization of their economy.

[Bereta_Eder]

Also if you read Robertson's latest statements it becomes apparent that the US feveresly wants Europe to start building up its military or it will cease to have the power to influence US politics.

Although this is a laughable statement and very crude it underlines the need of the US for up to standards «military companions» in order to avoi future problems of a(very) potential military overstretch.

[WhiteElephants]

Did any of you bother to read the article?

Al Martin's Raw? Come on! The man is a quack people!

DCHD, Domestic Control Hover Drone? What garbage! He's up to his eye balls in bull ****.

They started one of these hover drones up, and he said it virtually makes no sound at all. Even if you're ten feet away, you couldn't hear the thing. That's how quiet they are.

Not only can they photograph and relay still shots and real time video and transmit video, but they also have a "non-lethal" weapons capability, some sort of stun gun based on energy discharge technology. They're powered by what's known as a fusion power cell, which looks like a square pack of film. The power is produced through some sort of chemical reaction.

Beam me up Scotty cause this guy is full of crap!