As I pointed out in Hydroks post, I see an obvious contradiction between the US governments growing military expenditure and it's supposed will for World Peace.

The common rationale backing the militarism of the current Whitehouse incumbents is the [supposed] post 9-11 global insecurity. This has provided an excuse for huge boosts in the Defense department budget over the past years.
Whilst this is effective in the development of new more powerfull armament, on an international relations level this helps make the world a less secure place, quite contrary to official Bush administration policy.

The reaction of other nations is a military buildup of their own, following a similiar pattern to the Cold War conflict, but this time, instead of being a standoff situation between two powers, it is the US that is compeling the rest of the world to follow suit.
The objective of most of these nations is not deterrance, but rather an intent of trying to hold the balance of powers. Common interpretation of american militarism is that it contributes to polarize political opinions on a global scale, thus destabilizing and making the world more dangerous. This in turn provokes further arms buildup from all involved nations. This process does not have an effective end to it, and as long as military and political tension continues to grow all of the nations involved in global policy on a large scale will continue to substantially boost their military expenditure. The inevitable outcome of this process will be some sort of economic crisis related to the current recesive process that the economy is suffering due to the instability in the middle east(wich happens to be one of the consequences of this process).

Aside from the economic risk that a global military buildup holds we also have to account for the moral contradictions of militarism.
Missiles aren't defensive.
Deterrance is the stated justification to America's right to hold WMD's but the possesion doesn't cause aceceptance and moderation in potential enemy's, it causes fear, and fear leads to what I've stated above.

I believe an instant freeze in military spending is required to keep the current tensions from escalating. After that, a very small, progressive decrease in the military budget would contribute to stabilize the situation by transmiting an image of moderation and rationality.

It is quite clear that we are locked in a vicious circle, of wich we don't seem about to emerge.

Opinions please.

thanks work kept me from posting

quote:

Hi I'm back

Welcome back, Speed.

quote:

do you have any idea how long the national debt has been around? it didnt just appear withing the last 20 years. its been around since your great grandparents were born.

Yeah, the difference is that now our economy is so recessive and under so much strain because of the war that we can't support it anymore. Blasting wellfare is the typicall far right argument used by those who have not even the most fundamental comprehension of economics. The wellfare system is not responsible for our economy's suffocation, but years and years of conservative administrations, and by this I also include democrats, have led the american populace to believe that wellfare is unsustainable.
A government with a conservative mindset will invariably prioritize the wellbeing of the private sector of the economy, thus, privatizing all forms of social security is just natural for them, but to do so it is necessary to create the ilusion that wellfare is a problem.
The truth is that wellfare is not too cost expensive to maintain, but it is terribly ineffective due to horrible management of the funds. In all European country's Hospitals(and I'm referring to large hospitals) have a small office, usually on one of the top floors dedicated to accounting, that is due to automatized payment systems, and a much wider social security coverage of those in need of medical treatment. In the US, most hospitals have huge office facility's dedicated to accounting, due to the private system which makes funds much more difficult to manage.
Wellfare is likewise, and to some extent, the ineffectiveness is a result of government policy's which have allways wanted to create the ilusion that wellfare needs to go for our economy's wellbeing. If any future administration where willing to make the effort of restructuring the social security system to be more cost effective there would be no real compeling reason to criticize it or consider it negative for our economic wellbeing.

Hi I'm back

quote:

now im going to make an assumption (probably an accurate one). your brother probably just joined a few years ago which means he only served one term,

Yeah, he joined when he got out of high school. He was 18, I believe when he joined.

quote:

My brother tried to get out. They had told him that he was going to, he did the paperwork and it seemed as though everything was ready for him to get out, and then a couple of days after that they told him there was a change of plans and that they'd be sending him back to Iraq for a year or a year and a half.

sorry to hear about your brothers dilema. now im going to make an assumption (probably an accurate one). your brother probably just joined a few years ago which means he only served one term, in the standard military contract you are obligated to serve a minimum of 8 years (4 active 4 inactive). now the kicker is that if need be they can pull from your inactive time while your still in and auto-extend you to what the see fit. they would rather do that to someone who is still in and doesnt have to be trained instead of pulling some reservist (or inactive reservist) who would they would need to spend X amount of dollars on to re-train.

quote:

all the people in the administration and the upper tier of the corporate world will be dead, and will have passed on the huge fortunes they made off Iraq, and we will have to take the strain of a stagnant economy that won't be able to provide unemployment payment, and even the most basic kind of medical care for those unable to pay for it.

On another issue, if you believe that a decrease in military budget will mean a cut to your salary you're wrong, the army spends tons of cash on contractors and research which in truth is completely unecessary, mostly because the war itself is pointless, and is killing both our economy and our soldiers.

do you have any idea how long the national debt has been around? it didnt just appear withing the last 20 years. its been around since your great grandparents were born. like i said money is irrelivent and i would hope that they get rid of welfare first, thats a real reason why our economy is shite. and the high end corporate will make money reguardless, stopping the war in iraq will not change how money is being made in big business, if its not one thing its another.
can you name some of this research that is uneccessary? pretty much anything that they develope or research, while it might not be used today or tomorrow, serves its purpose. and i really hope your not relying on what the army does for your facts.

quote:

heres a quick and simple question. does anyone really give a rats ass as to how much money the govt. spends on the military, or anything for that matter? money is totally irrelavent because everyone knows the national debt is never going to be paid back so i dont know why anyone even bothers brining it up.

I bother bringing it up because by the time your children and mine are in high school, all the people in the administration and the upper tier of the corporate world will be dead, and will have passed on the huge fortunes they made off Iraq, and we will have to take the strain of a stagnant economy that won't be able to provide unemployment payment, and even the most basic kind of medical care for those unable to pay for it.
If you're ok with that congratulations, I admire your apathy.

On another issue, if you believe that a decrease in military budget will mean a cut to your salary you're wrong, the army spends tons of cash on contractors and research which in truth is completely unecessary, mostly because the war itself is pointless, and is killing both our economy and our soldiers.

quote:

about 90% of all military jobs would fetch anywhere from high 5 figures to an easy 6 figure salary. thats why the really smart people get out, then get a job doing the exact same thing they did in the military but working with the govt. not for the govt.

My brother tried to get out. They had told him that he was going to, he did the paperwork and it seemed as though everything was ready for him to get out, and then a couple of days after that they told him there was a change of plans and that they'd be sending him back to Iraq for a year or a year and a half.

quote:

Ugh, that is true. My brother is in Iraq and has been there at least twice and he doesn't make as much as he should in my opinion. That is simply not fair.

about 90% of all military jobs would fetch anywhere from high 5 figures to an easy 6 figure salary. thats why the really smart people get out, then get a job doing the exact same thing they did in the military but working with the govt. not for the govt.

quote:

right, lets cut the pathetic pay-check i already get. thatll make things all better for us poverty stricken military folk.

Ugh, that is true. My brother is in Iraq and has been there at least twice and he doesn't make as much as he should in my opinion. That is simply not fair.

heres a quick and simple question. does anyone really give a rats ass as to how much money the govt. spends on the military, or anything for that matter? money is totally irrelavent because everyone knows the national debt is never going to be paid back so i dont know why anyone even bothers brining it up.

quote:

After that, a very small, progressive decrease in the military budget would contribute to stabilize the situation by transmiting an image of moderation and rationality.

right, lets cut the pathetic pay-check i already get. thatll make things all better for us poverty stricken military folk.

quote:

are corporations evil?

is that a joke? or are you making a serious question?

quote:

Not one of those country's has ever attacked the US, I suggest you consult a psychiatrist on skizofrenia, you seem to be imagining things.

but they DO attack Israel as well as supply funds for terrorism to attack us. They are not our friends and neither is Saudi Arabia. and please.....do you see me slamming your intelligence?

quote:

The United States Government has been responsible for the overthrow of many democratically elected governments, I'll name a few for you:

yet your information is over 30 years old. a lot can change at that time, politically and culturally.

quote:

Because the one's making money are the corporations

are corporations evil?

quote:

A rethorical question:
Do you think the United States of America would have invaded Iraq if the country's prime resource was Artichokes? If Iraq had no oil, but instead had absolutely huge artichoke fields, if it was one of the prime artichoke producer in the world, do you think we would have invaded?

I think in a way, yes! Oil was probably a slight factor, but generally; Iraq has an excellent strategic position for Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

you can keep posting every one of your argumentss and I'll continue to nitpick them and prove every one wrong but do as you please.

quote:

The main reason we are there is to provide a stable democratic country in the middle east and an ally

WRONG. The US government doesn't want democracy, mostly becasue democracy involves giving power to the people, and the people aren't about to cooperate with the US, whom they see as an invader. In fact, historical precedent suggest exactly the opposite.
The United States Government has been responsible for the overthrow of many democratically elected governments, I'll name a few for you:

Chile - Augusto Pinochet led a military coup that overthrew the democraticaly elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11th 1973. The Coup was planned and backed by the CIA with support from the White House which was currently inhabited by Richard Nixon.

Iran - In 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister of Iran, replacing the Shah. Mossadegh followed a nationalization policy, mainly aimed at providing Iranians with the actual benefits that they had a right to from their oil. The British and US governments quickly intervened, and through the CIA managed to destabilize the democraticaly elected regime and place the shah in power again by 1953. The Shah reinstated his autocratic regime, letting western corporations to continue to reap the benefit's of Iran's oil, creating the social climate that led to the 1979 revolution. Now Iran is an islamic fundamentalist state.

Guatemala - In 1954 the CIA actively overthrew Guatemala's elect president Jacobo Arbenz with the help of a small group of elite rich land owners. The reason for this was because Arbenz instated a policy which expropriated unused land from the United Fruit Company, and made it state owned. This land was destined to be used by poor farmers so they could obtain survival means, and boost the national economy. Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas was instated as president, and governed Guatemala in a pro US dictatorial fashion untill he was assasinated.

So if we are to trust historical evidence, like you seemingly do to back your arguments, we will see that the US government has a history of overthrowing democratic governments and instating white house puppet's in their place. These puppets are invariably military dictators

quote:

Iran, Syria, and Lebanon will have to think before they act next time they carry out attacks against the US

Not one of those country's has ever attacked the US, I suggest you consult a psychiatrist on skizofrenia, you seem to be imagining things.

quote:

but if people have more electrical hours than they did under Sadam, is that a good thing or bad? If everyone benefits it is good

For one, people do not have more electrical hours than under Saddam. The first thing we did when the invasion took place was knock out the power grid, that way our enemy's wouldn't be able to employ the electricity for many vital needs, like operating hospitals. Also, that created a need for out engineering contractors, I've detailed that below, reread it if you want because you don't seem to have understood it.
Many Baghdad neighborhoods are still functioning only with gasoline run generators, if you look in the news reports from 2004 and 2005 you'll even see there where incidents of people killing each other over gasoline to run their generators.
There is also a less commonly known motive for the destruction and posterior rebuild of the power grid, and that is psychological warfare and propaganda. The US airforce destroyed the power grid so the US could rebuild it. Obviously, when it was destroyed the media made no mention of it, but the media got all over the story of how american corporations with army cover rebuild it for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I don't think I need to say that the Iraqi people's benefit is the least of the concerns of those corporations.

quote:

so tell me my friend, why is it that our gas prices are still high? Iraq also sell's oil to other countries and their government gets the revenue not us as you seem to suggest.

Because the one's making money are the corporations. Governments do not own the oil. Corporations do, and like I said: CORPORATIONS DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU OR ME. Corporations want to make money, and they will allways charge more when it is possible. No other country's are making money off Iraqi oil, unless you believe Exxon, BP, and Shell are country's. I said it before and I will say it again, economic growth is not something that benefit's us, it benefit's those at the top. You'll never get cheaper oil because that means the very rich will be making less money, and that is not acceptable.

You're welcome to come back for more.

PS:

quote:

A rethorical question:
Do you think the United States of America would have invaded Iraq if the country's prime resource was Artichokes? If Iraq had no oil, but instead had absolutely huge artichoke fields, if it was one of the prime artichoke producer in the world, do you think we would have invaded?

quote:

You seem to hold the common misconception that american foreign policy responds only to high moral standards, that we are in Iraq to bring democracy to it's people, that our actions are inherently good. There is nothing inherently good to our actions.

you misunderstand me, that is one of the perks. The main reason we are there is to provide a stable democratic country in the middle east and an ally so that we can keep Syria and Iran on their heels. that is militarily and tactically the reason we are there. With an American presence in Iraq: Iran, Syria, and Lebanon will have to think before they act next time they carry out attacks against the US, against Israel, or against the rest of the world.

quote:

Also, you seem to have the misconception that economic benefit somehow involves the improvement of conditions for the average citizen, that is a common error of those that share your views, economic benefit does not mean that you or me will make more money, it means that people at the top, those that govern the corporate world are going to make more money.

but if people have more electrical hours than they did under Sadam, is that a good thing or bad? If everyone benefits it is good.

quote:

The proof that America's prime interest in Iraq is oil is that price's are higher.

so tell me my friend, why is it that our gas prices are still high? Iraq also sell's oil to other countries and their government gets the revenue not us as you seem to suggest.

quote:

thank you for using the standard liberal excuse. The United States has spent so much more money into Iraq than it could ever get from a paltry 5 cent discount at your next fill-up.

I believe you didn't understand my previous post.
Most of the money the US has invested in Iraq comes from the costs of rebuilding infrastructure. This money is paid to American corporations. Essentially what the government does is use tax payer's money to award largely exagerated contracts to engineering firms. The other modus operandi that is comonly adopted in these situations is the one I have previously described. The US government, using it's influence(you can also call it control) of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, will award money to a nation, so this nation can purchase services from the US corporations in which the government has interest.
Are American corporations rebuilding Iraq?(to some extent, must be skeptic on this)
Yes they are.
How are they doing this?
They are doing it by cycling money through the economy in an upward direction. Essentially, they use taxpayer's money to pay themselves for services a foreign country needs. Obviously they are the one's who created these needs in the first place.
Unlike in a healthy economy, where flow of funds is considered positive due to the stimulus it creates, this flow adopts a static nature once the corporations have been paid for their services. The contracts through which they are paid are invariably exagerated as I have said about 6 times by now, therefore the excedent of these sums is kept, and the only purpose it serves is enriching the upper tier of the corporate world.

quote:

so why are we buying Iraqi oil at full market prices?

Because American corporations are the ones in charge of producing the oil now, and these same corporations are the one's rebuilding Iraq. Iraq is a country with an extremely valuable natural resource, it doesn't need to obtain loans from the World Bank and the IMF, so the corporations that are now exploiting the oil procure for themselves. You also have missed the point on this, the US doesn't care about the price of Iraqi oil, if the US wants oil it will have oil, and it doesn't need be Iraqi. The real motivation behind this is control of a huge oil supply. The same as nuclear warheads supposedly serve as deterrence against aggression, the control of such a huge ammount of the global oil production serves as deterrence towards any policy's OPEC may adopt that don't suit american interests.
The proof that America's prime interest in Iraq is oil is that price's are higher. You see, the one's making money off the oil are corporations, corporations main interest is maximizing profit. The corporate interests to which the Bush administration responds demand maximization of profit, and the unstability of the market has jacked prices up, making more money for these corporations. Do you think Shell, Exxon, or BP want us to have cheaper gas for our cars? no, they do not, cheaper gas for us means less money for them, and that goes against corporate common sense.

A rethorical question:
Do you think the United States of America would have invaded Iraq if the country's prime resource was Artichokes? If Iraq had no oil, but instead had absolutely huge artichoke fields, if it was one of the prime artichoke producer in the world, do you think we would have invaded?

You seem to hold the common misconception that american foreign policy responds only to high moral standards, that we are in Iraq to bring democracy to it's people, that our actions are inherently good. There is nothing inherently good to our actions. We do not strive for the greater benefit of the Iraqi people, the only thing we want out of Iraq is economic benefit and influence in the mid east. Also, you seem to have the misconception that economic benefit somehow involves the improvement of conditions for the average citizen, that is a common error of those that share your views, economic benefit does not mean that you or me will make more money, it means that people at the top, those that govern the corporate world are going to make more money. There is a name for that view, it is called Wilsonian Idealism. I suggest you look it up and read some about it, atleast that way you will be able to justify your own views better.

quote:

The US starts making money off Iraqi oil

thank you for using the standard liberal excuse. The United States has spent so much more money into Iraq than it could ever get from a paltry 5 cent discount at your next fill-up.

quote:

remember they're at civil war-, and they owe the US for it

they actually owe their religion for being intolerant.... yes I do know what I am saying.

quote:

You've just inadvertently stated the main control mecanism used be the United States in it's Imperialist practices.

it's actually more of it being a superpower practice / responsibility.

quote:

This is the ultimate goal, control of the most vital resource, oil, and thus economic supremacy.

so why are we buying Iraqi oil at full market prices?

the point is, there are such a thing as military contractors, which not only build military items, but also construct civilian utilities. ask around, talk to contractors before you come again. Thank you.

quote:

utilities for Iraq are built by contractors, those contractors are hired by the military, the military gets money from the government budgets.

No. Wrong.
You've just inadvertently stated the main control mecanism used be the United States in it's Imperialist practices.

When a poor developing -or destroyed- country needs to make changes to it's infrastucture, like building new electric grids, railway system's, nuvlear power plant's, etc... it invariably recurrs to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both being organisms controled by the US government. Developing -or destroyed- country's then make petitions to international consulting firms and engineering corporations to make economic forecasts on future development and growth. These corporations invariably exagerate their predictions to earn bigger contracts, and to condemn developing country's to debt.

So, what we have is this.

The US destroy's Iraqi infrastructure. The US starts making money off Iraqi oil. The US then decides to rebuild that infrastructure, obviously because it's a humanitarian cause. The US contracts Halliburton, Bechtel, and other corporations to make the necessary growth and enginering forecastt, so as to know how much money they have to put in, remember this money comes from the Iraqi's oil. These corporations exagerate the sums needed, so they can push the economy into a US dependancy.
When the projects are concluded, Iraq has a useless infrastructure-remember they're at civil war-, and they owe the US for it. This debt in other country's that don't posses oil takes the form of money, but since Iraq is such an oil rich nation, they will pay off their debt by giving the US exploiting rights of their oil. The US will then lower prices, destabilizing and undermining OPEC. This is the ultimate goal, control of the most vital resource, oil, and thus economic supremacy.

quote:

Saddam spent his money on guns and missiles...and the civilians suffered.

Wrong again. The civilians suffered because of the economic sanctio