quote:

As we all know, making more missiles is much more important than helping the empoverished and starving

why don't you try constructing civilian buildings and feeding people with a cut budget? Hospitals and other utilities for Iraq are built by contractors, those contractors are hired by the military, the military gets money from the government budgets.

The only real time that all the money would ever go into missiles and bullets and guns in the complete, would be if it was a war of American survival....such as if someone invaded. I assume that you've never even thought of what an organization like the Army does.Have you ever heard of the corps of engineers? they build stuff like roads, hospitals, runways, electric infrastructure....generally things that a country would want and it costs money from the government. So, by paying your taxes, you help the Iraqi people get more electricity and roads! That outta give you a warm fuzzy feeling.

And why should I hold anything resembling gratefullness when there is absolutely no need to be at war? Don't worry you don't have to answer that, I know you're incapable of doing so and making sense.

Also, I thought this thread had died because it was made sufficiently clear that my position on this issue was correct and statistically backed. But seeing the thread is back it would be interesting to point out that the new budget proposal for 2007 looks to increase military spending yet again, this time by cutting back on unemployment(exact figures not disclosed), Anti Drug Initiatives in Central and Latin America(from 722 to 443 million dollars), and aid for developing country's(from 1499 to 1041 million dollars).
As we all know, making more missiles is much more important than helping the empoverished and starving.

I take this is something you're happy about, please comment.

However the GDP that is spent on our military amounts to 3.5%... yes we are spending far to much making sure that our troops have the tools necessary to survive and making sure they have proper health care instead of turning them over to the floundering VA as has been done in the past... but to make you happy they did recently discount the entire notion of Gulf War Syndrome so they wouldn't have to treat those patients. So the government is actually trying to save you money you ungrateful asshole.

What America is doing is very human. They have enormous economic wealth, so they go flinging they're weight around. Standard imperial practice.
The Mongols realised they're power, and forged an enormous asian empire. The British realised they're power, and when marching around the world claiming everything as theirs. This has been the same for all historical powers.

America still consists of human beings, so we can not expect them to be different. For those of you who live in America, would you rather be at the mercy of another world power, or be apart of the worlds foremost power?

You fail to see that it's not a home issue, rather an international one, regardless of the objectives that justify increased military spending, it's consecuences are all to clear to be negated.

Try posting it again
It's also happened to me a number of times

Christ I posted something in this thread a few days ago with an image and it STILL hasn't been approved?? What the hell?

you still fail to understand...

We are not consciously involved in an arms race like during the cold war, we are provoking one now through an aggressive foreign policy.
It's not about how you can justify the military spending, it's about the consequences of this process.

quote:

Quick question, what balance of power? And who would the States be racing against? And are you saying that the US's econonomy is CURRENTY stabalized?

Triss I've said about 10 times in this thread so far that the american economy is in recession.
The arms race process is starting to take shape in middle eastern nations, north korea, who has become extremely active all of a sudden, and european country's have started to boost military budgets lately in an intent to keep up and increase homeland security wich many feel is menaced since the US invaded Iraq.
The balance of power is a more tricky issue. Short handedly, if the US stays in Iraq and somehow carries out sanctions against Iran or North Korea we will see American influence increase a lot, however, if the current trend isn't broken, the economy will eventually reach a point where it will be unable to support the strain put on it by aggressive international policy and isolationim, and it will suffer a severe accident. Once this happens the US will be forced to change it's foreign policy based on money issues, this will inevitably convey a sense of weakness to other aspiring powers like China and Russia, that will immediately seek to gain influence in the mid east.

You do realize that besides regular defense increases, the budget also has to pay for BRAC now so we can save money later... I can come up with a million reasons why the spending is up that has nothing to do with an "arms race"

quote:

Originally posted by speed:
Most reasonable people realize that we are provoking a second arms race that will eventually damage our economy, and distabilize current balance of power.

How exactly are we provoking an arms race? We've decresed nuclear stockpiles, the size of our army is stagnant, we've only got a few new weapons systems that don't threaten anyone more, on a strategic scale, than we did in 1990.

While I'd bet that our current military budget is inlfated, you have to realise that the US Defense budget does not go all into bombs and tanks.

As Hydrok noted, the military's sole job is not to blow things up. And to say that the Department of Energy is bad because "it makes nukes" is laughable. We've been deactivating our stockpile on and off since the end of the Cold War. There's no nuclear arms race on the US side nowadays. What your doing is akin to saying that Boeing is causing an arms race becaues it's building all these new passanger liners and also happens to make military jets and cruise missiles.

And the Department of Homeland Security is not a "counter terrorist organization". It it merely a command head that encompases the FBI, TSA, CIA, etc. While terrorism is certainly one of the current priorities, to say that it's the only priority is, again, laughable.

You want to know one of the main reasons policy makers in the US are pushing to increase the DoD budget? It's not terrorism.

quote:

Most reasonable people realize that we are provoking a second arms race that will eventually damage our economy, and distabilize current balance of power.

Quick question, what balance of power? And who would the States be racing against? And are you saying that the US's econonomy is CURRENTY stabalized? - Because if you've even just looked at the difference between the Canadian and American Dollar in the last while, you'll notice that your guy's economy has really slowed down.

Most reasonable people realize that we are provoking a second arms race that will eventually damage our economy, and distabilize current balance of power.

Most reasonable people realize that wars tend to lend to increases in defense spending, although the figures for the actual war effort are "not included" much of the money being spent is for "modernization" which includes upgrading our vehicles to prevent them from being blown to bits.

So tell me, when are you going to parade with Fred Phelps.

It means that the government are bad liars, as they publicly state they will world peace, but they continue to boost military spendings with the derivated effects I stated.

Don't feign misunderstanding, you pursposefully misinterpreted that statement to disqualify me.

quote:

Furthermore, according to your chart there was no exponential rise in world wide defense spending until 2002.

Was there not? I though adding $33 Billion dolars to the budget was an increase, I guess I should go back to first grade math, I must have got it all wrong.
The global repsonse to the US policy started in 2002, when the attack on Afghanistan made clear the administration was adopting an aggresive military policy. Thus other antions responded.

Also the fiscal year runs from Oct. 1st to Sept. 30th. which means the budgetary items in response to 9-11 did not occur till after the fiscal year 01. Furthermore, according to your chart there was no exponential rise in world wide defense spending until 2002.

quote:

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.

Then what exactly is that supposed to mean, the obvious contradiction to world peace would be world war would it not?

quote:

The Department of Defense has reported it will request

Those figures correspond to a request, not the final ammount of the actual Budget once it had undergone changes by the administration, and had been modified and aproved by congress.

Notice that the budget for 2001 had a $5 Billion addition made to it through congressional petition.
The final ammount is $343.3 Billion like I said.

Nice try.

Learn to read, I never said anything about a war with the whole planet. A beatifull figment of your imagination.

FY 2002 Break Down
FY 2003 Justification

And you can look at all the justifications from the second link. But at any rate, I don't see all out war with the whole planet on there anywhere.

I take it your part of the Hugo Chavez book club?

The governement has allways shown a secretive attitude regarding military matters, only revealing what is absolutely essential to keep the public satisfied with an ilusion of policy transparency.

It is obviously not of government interest that the public knows how much of their taxes are being used towards military ends whilst public education and healthcare are getting progresively worse over time.
The obvious deduction is that if the government includes Energy and Homeland Security in Military budget's it's for a reason.
It contradicts logic, if Energy didn't meet military ends, there is no conceivable reason for the administration to include it in military budgets.

Like I said before, those figures in all probability are understatements of the real expenses of military and defense(attack) programs.

Remember these are all oficial figures provided by government sources.