Sunday, August 28, 2005

Everything you need to know about US foreign policy in two paragraphs

Before the invasion of Iraq , George W bush argued that you could not have a situation where the "world's worst leaders were in charge of the world's most powerfull weapons" .

Since the end of the second world war , The Americans have spent US$19 trillion on what they call defense . That means that if you were to spend US$26 million every day since the birth of Christ ,you'd still have spent less then the americans have spent on defense since the end of the second world war . Put another way , if you had funded a small military invasion (helicopters , small arms , infantry support) each and every day for the last 2000 years (thats 750,000 wars) you still would not have matched what the US has spent on defense in the last fifty !


Anonymous Anonymous said...

and there is a good possibility that you have the freedom to write this dribble as a direct result of that spending. we welcome how appreciative you are.

August 28, 2005 5:49 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

hahahaha .. erm what freedom ?

please do tell me

what exactly have 'I' gained for this 19 trillion ?

that could not have been achieved with 1 trillion ?

of course i can always ask the people of vietnam or iraq or somalia etc etc how they feel

maybe they dont appreciate it too


August 28, 2005 6:03 pm  
Blogger pansyjoan said...

You need to edit your comments so that you don't get those advertisers. It's easy just go into comment section of dashboard, all you're doing is making a commentor retype some random words,and it will block that garbage. About your post, it is mind-boggling that we (US) are the only ones allowed to haveWMD and we patrol and condemn others who want them.

August 28, 2005 6:40 pm  
Anonymous somethingsphishy said...

I have a feeling that 19 Trillion could have bought world peace. But how can one make world peace into a lucrative business? Sad, there is more money for the industrial military complex to make on war then there is on peace.
Capitalism at it's finest!

August 28, 2005 7:12 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Thankyou dor your comments , the advertising bot's have got alot worse in the last three days and i am no longer enjoying the 'pleasure of deleting them' so i have taken up the advice and added verification to the comments section

as for how much 19 trillion could have achieved , one thing i am sure of is that if we had used the money to address issues such as

wiping out 3rd world debt
helping africa step out of poverty
solving the israel/palastinian issue

an many others , the the world would not be feeling the kind of anger and hypocracy that feel about what the US government is doing and the world would today be a much much safer place then it is for all that military spending

look at Iraq , the mis match in technology is awsome , the equipment being used by the US is the best in the world

but for all that , a couple of thousand lightly armed 'insurgents' can trap the american forces in the country and hold back an army that spends more on itself then the next seven countries combined

so what was the point ?

i am no pacifist and i understand the need for the military and accept the need for 'certain' conflicts but these numbers are obsene , and that level of spending has been a complete waste of american money that could have been used in many ways to make american's safer and happier then they are today

August 28, 2005 9:53 pm  
Anonymous Woody said...

Elected leaders, with regular debate, decided that the defense money spent was necessary to protect the citizens and secure the interests of the United States. That's an easy concept. They also did it with U.S. tax money and are, thus, accountable to U.S. citizens--not those in foreign lands.

Criticisms of spending decisions in the past but made today by people at this and other sites is "monday morning quarterbacking" and is likely made with incomplete information. I'll trust the decisions of my Presidents and representatives over that.

Also, don't forget that a strong military is to deter wars before winning them. I think that the rest of the world should be glad that it is the U.S. that is strong rather than communist countries and that the U.S. is willing to stand up for freedom. You could do a lot worse.

August 29, 2005 4:21 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

H, you have the freedom not pick up the little red book that USSR overlords would have forced on you.

And, to me, if nothing else, look at how much money we spent... aint Capitalism grand? We can blow that much money, and STILL have more.

Russia went bankrupt, China was until the opened up their economy to something akin to Capitalism, and N. Korea cant feed its own...

August 29, 2005 5:35 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

G , we didnt need you at all , thankyou very much

the UK and France already had enough nuclear missiles to put rusisia back to the stone age

so tell me , at what point would russia had said , invasion of britain is worth losing 3/4 of our cities

it is a mute point

you have an over inflated view of your world contribution there buddy

August 29, 2005 6:15 pm  
Anonymous Woody said...

_H_, in G's defense, there are a lot of defenseless countries that place hope on the U.S. to stay free from the USSR or other enemies. Certainly the U.K. can take care of itself if it chooses. Closer to home and not one so defenseless is Canada, for which I don't see them worried about spending money for a big defense because we're providing it for them.

August 29, 2005 7:45 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

again woody , it may suprise you but our views are not that different really

i do NOT dispute that america has to spend on its military

i do NOT dispute that america needs to spend alot of dollars to do this

i DO dispute that america feels that it is ok to spend more then the next 7 countries combined , especially now the soviet threat has diminished (a little)

when a country has that kind of spending levels (as the nazi's did leading to world war 2) then it is right of the world to question you , and say .. hang on ? are you sure ..

you dont need to spend THAT much to defend your interests and project your foreign policy

unless .. your foreign policy is world domination , and if it is , then we are right to call you on it

August 29, 2005 8:00 pm  
Blogger Howard said...

We've enabled our soldiers to fight a smarter war with fewer men and more technology..Whats wrong with that? In ww2 we had 16 million men under arms and swapped soldiers lives for lack of technology..There was no such thing as a million dollar bomb or rocket until the end of the war with the a-bomb. You haven't seen anything yet..In the pretty near future the US will be able to fight a war with very little manpower exposure and I will gladly say amen to that..If you want to pick up your old hunting rifle and your old hound dog and go getum, Have at it..

August 29, 2005 8:42 pm  
Anonymous Woody said...

The U.S. learned lessons after WWI that it is not a good idea to disarm yourself. It sure put us in a bad position at the start of WWII.

Regarding the cost of the military, there are some factors totally independent of force size.

One is technology. That is growing at a high rate over the normal build-up or maintenance of our forces. Technology costs a lot of money, but that saves lives. Stealth bombers, laser guided bombs, cruise missles, and military satellites aren't cheap--but they are very effective and also reduce civilian casualties.

Another factor is that much of the defense is tied to politics. We're going through base closings now. My congressman consistently votes to take money from defense and use it for social programs. However, he started howling when the base commission closed two major facilities in his district. Other bases that should be closed will not be. There is a lot of waste unrelated to our defense, but for which defense gets unfairly charged.

Another thing is that we have to keep defense contractors going, even when there is peace, because it takes too long to ramp-up during war. A good example is our aircraft industry, for which we spend money in peace just to keep them open.

Also, we have a volunteer army. That comes at a price higher than an army that forces you to serve and doesn't have to pay much.

Well, this could go on-and-on, but suffice it to say that the cost of maintaining OUR military goes far beyond what the dollar numbers indicate and does not have anything to do with world domination. Heck, I wish that other countries would pitch in more and let us back off in the efforts to maintain what peace and stability there is in the world.

August 29, 2005 8:52 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

howard said "We've enabled our soldiers to fight a smarter war with fewer men and more technology"

sorry howard , nice words , but i don't buy the white house line here and sadly i dont watch fox

even if you are kind , 30,000 iraqi citizens have been killed , that is NOT terrorists or soldiers or insurgents but everyday folk like you and me

now we can debate about how they dont target civilians etc but so what ?

the people are still dead

and the us forces , without the help of any terrorists have killed by accident more people then the terrorist can do on purpose

3000 people died on spet 11th and they ment to do that

look at the numbers of dead innocents in response

tell me bush is not a terrorist to

woody :in response to you , i really dont actually doubt anything you say

this is a moral issue , and the end of the day , taking everything you say into account i still think the budget is at least 4 times bigger then it needed to be to do the same thing

and i think that using that money in more 'liberal' ways would have done more to bring about world peace then spending it all as we did

August 29, 2005 10:21 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home