Thread in which the world laughs at America

[Zevico]

I'm really not getting the Taiwan point.

Went off topic a bit there.

[Hauldren Collider]

When you hear it you think 'oh, that is awful'.

But then when you see how debate/etc goes on in Africa, you realize that claiming that the west is responsible is patronizing to the Africans.

This opinion is based on South Africa mostly, one of the worst hit nations as far as HIV goes.

JM

No, Swaziland is the worst hit nation as far as HIV goes. Lesotho is also doing poorly. I had a teacher who used to live there as part of the Peace Corps actually.

Then again, they are both garbage countries whereas South Africa's actually got places that could be considered first-world.

[MOBIUS]

Your pedantic stupidity is simply quite unending, HC…

Firstly, he said one of the worst – not the worst.

Secondly if you had the slightest clue about world geography, you’d realise that both of those nations you mention are effectively satellites of SA, especially considering Lesotho is actually completely surrounded by SA. Not to mention the fact that they’re all in the region of South Africa, if not the actual nation itself.

Anyway, keep up the good work!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Where is the thread where America laughs at itself?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

[Pax]

Of the 192-195 countries in the world: Which countries should not be ashamed or laughed at? Which countries are just so benevolent that if you look into their history books you won't find any blemishes. If you read there newspapers you won't find any scandals or issues?

[rah]

Normally I would say 0, but since the winners write the history books and sometimes can control the newspapers, there are probably some.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

there is a difference from a regime like Iran, and the country of freedom... higher standards have higher expectations...

[Pax]

there is a difference from a regime like Iran, and the country of freedom... higher standards have higher expectations...

I'm talking about ANY country in the world.

[Whoha]

On the (long, long, ****ing long) drive up to my mom's place in northern Michigan today, I was struck by a relatively simple idea that seemed to solve some foreign policy issues, as well as help the US economy. In fact, it seems so simple, that I must be missing something completely ****ing obvious as to why no one is suggesting it.


We've got many closed military bases around the country. We've got ****tons of military stationed overseas (even before these ruinous wars).

All those troops in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, Cuba... bring them home. Station them on re-opened bases. The towns around those bases get a crapload of economic stimulus and new jobs. We save ****tons of money just on the logistics of not supplying the military around the world. And we're far less likely to stick our nose into every pissant country we please, as we no longer have the capability.


Clearly, I'm missing something. Seriously. And I don't think it is only "we won't give up our global military," there's gotta be something else. What is it?

For starters that won't be anywhere near enough, the main cost of military spending is payroll basically. Second there is the issue that those bases weren't just placed there to push other countries around whenever we might feel like it. They were put there to safeguard world trade as well as other issues. That can be unwound, but not right away.

Honestly, do we think South Korea can't defend itself against North Korea? That Japan can't defend itself against China?


EDIT: maybe "incapable" is a better word than "can't" for the idea I'm trying to express.

They very well can, and we all know it, by going nuclear.

[Dauphin]

For starters that won't be anywhere near enough, the main cost of military spending is payroll basically.

It's a lot, but not what I would call the main, unless those one and half million personnel are being paid hundreds of thousands such that it eats into a $700 billion budget.

[Jon Miller]

If you include deployment, overhead, retirement, future payments, veteran benefits, etc... maybe?

JM

[Riesstiu IV]

[Dauphin]

If you include deployment, overhead, retirement, future payments, veteran benefits, etc... maybe?

JM

Deployment and overheads falls under operational costs, at least in this argument - the suggested idea was that bringing troops home from overseas would save money, but this idea was, to quote General Melchett "poo-pooed" on the basis that the cost of no longer being deployed was insignificant or negligible compared to payroll costs. Veterans pensions and benefits - they are separately funded, no?

I would have thought that procurement and contracts would be bigger costs or about the same size as payroll cost. Active deployment and operational costs would probably be pretty high as well and make up the other significant cost. How much oil (and hence cost) they use to fly planes, have ships at sea and run the land vehicles?. How much do they spend on ordnance? How much on training? How much on admin support? etc

[DanS]

According to ABC News, Standard & Poor is about to downgrade US debt from AAA, where it had been forever.

This appears to be a proper downgrade. The debt deal was very modest -- the congress and president are kicking the can down the road until after the election, unfortunately.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Going to see a civil war re-enactment this weekend, 150th anniversary of bull run

It's going to be sweltering though....

You mean Manassas. We names battles after the towns we defended. The Yankees named 'em after the terrain features they tried to hide behind afore they just up and ran.