US Military Spending

[Helix]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
To have true communism there are no leaders. Everyone is equal and what one person has everyone has. It's an impossible utopia.

Exactly. In a perfect world, it would be the best. Unfortunately........ not gonna happen.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
Well the U.S certainly has a huge military. But the figures given include the national debt payments as entirely military related which may be true-but that's highly doubtful. More important, in my mind, when analyzing such things is looking at military spending as percentage of GDP. In 1999 the U.S spent 3.2% of GDP on military related expenditures. If you compare it to other countries (for instance 19th cent. Germany) you'd probably find the U.S spends less as a percentage of GDP on its military then Germany did, and spends far less as a percentage of GDP then Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and numerous African and Central Asian countries do. If those countries spent the same percentage of GDP on the military as the U.S did then they'd be spending far more on education and health etc.

True - especially when considering that North Korea spends about 80% of their GDP on their military.

Canada-which our constitution not withstanding is actually far more decentralized then the U.S is, as my politics prof constantly emphasizes

What do you mean more decentralized? I'm not really familiar with the Canada's Constitution. Our Constitution lays out the reponsibilities of each of the branches of government. The first 10 amendments make up the Bill of Rights. This was required by the states to make sure the federal government could NOT infringe on these rights. Congress nor the president can just do anything. The Supreme Court repeatedly knocks laws down because they are found unconstitutional. The Consitutions main purpose was to create a government where there was checks and balances - where no branch could have more control than any other. It was also to protect the rights of the citizens and the states. The states were basically individual countries before the Constitution was adopted. The history of Canada and the US although linked before the Revolutionary War, became very different during and after the war.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Helix
Exactly. In a perfect world, it would be the best. Unfortunately........ not gonna happen.

Personally - I don't actually find that to be a perfect world though. There would be no insentive to better yourself or do anything beyond the minimum.

Not that I would be able to start a company - since all companies would be owned by the state - but why would I want to take the risk if I could? There would be no HDTV or Cable or anything unless it served the state. Consumer products would not exist. There would be no need for stereo when it brings no additional benefits really than mono. We have stereo and color TVs and dishwashers because companies have spent time inventing these things and because consumers wanted them.

[IronParrot]

"The thing is it is up to AMERICANS to decide whether our military is over funded or not or how much funding we want to put into it."

I don't seem to remember when the United States ever had a referendum on military spending. And your last election was pretty split down the middle, too. So I don't see how the American people even have a cohesive voice here.

"Concerning foreign aid - the US gives more in foreign aid and relief than any other country. I want to know why no one sent in forces to protect the UN relief workers after our soldiers were dragged naked through the streets of Somalia. Why after our military left - did the Un relief workers have to leave? I thought the UN was a world body. Why didn't anyone else send in troops to take our place?"

First of all, if you look at foreign aid in terms of the percentage of your GDP, the claim isn't nearly as impressive. Secondly, this is a circular argument - other countries don't supply a military force because the US has so many troops to send. Why sacrifice lives when the American government will do it for you, right? So if you want to see more foreign involvement, then the Americans perhaps shouldn't play such a big role. You'll certainly disagree with that, so I think this is a contradiction on your part.

Essentially, the US has a big military, so other countries think they don't have to. I live in Canada so I know this for a fact. May I also remind you that, evening everything out a bit, the US owes the UN billions in dues.

"There could be some areas where we could do more. A lot of countries can too. Personnally I feel that we should pull all our troops home - build a missile defense system (seems we need it now with North Korea) and let the world fend for itself. Let Europe deal with the Middle East."

So NORAD is suddenly insufficient? I don't think another Star Wars is worth your tax money, to tell you the truth. Aside from that, what you've said here is pretty agreeable.

"Canada doesn't need a strong military - Europe doesn't need a strong military. Why? Because they all rely on the US when things get really tough. Yeah - everyone helped out in Afganistan. But it wasn't because the US wasn't able to handle it militarily. We wanted world support for political reasons. To send a message to Al Qaeda that the world was against him. Everyone wants our military used when it serves their purproses - they just don't want OUR military used when it serves the purposes of the UNITED STATES."

You're factually correct here, but I don't see it as a problem - and furthermore, I still don't see how your current level of military spending is somehow lacking.

"You know this? And what about the Soviet Union AFTER Stalin?" (re: Stalin disagreeing with Marxist doctrine)

The fact that the Soviet Union was institutionalized and centralized the way it was contradicts Marxist communism at a basic level. Not only were the economic policies vastly divergent in several ways, but the nationalized structure of the Soviet economy isn't anything close to the "worldwide communism" Marx envisioned. It was protectionist. Like I said earlier, this logic of yours also implies that the Americans would have invaded the Soviet Union if the latter didn't have a military.

"They wouldn't because of oiur military. Do you really think they would think twice if we didn't have our military?" (re: China invading the US)

I'm not saying the US shouldn't have a military at all. I'm just saying that it goes far beyond necessity. If American soil was for the taking, with no resistance, of course anybody would invade it. That's a pointless argument. Fundamentally, however, invasion of the United States was clearly not on China's agenda. The onus is on you to prove otherwise, and speculation isn't proof. Canada had a strong economy, and not much of a military after WWII. Nobody invaded Canada.

"Without our military the Soviet Union would not have been kept in check. I didn't see Austria or Poland internally accept facism - I think it was forced upon them by an invading force - namely Germany."

Regarding Austria - one word: Anschluss. Poland's a different issue entirely, because its invasion did provide the grounds for a "hot war".

It's true that without your military, the Soviet Union would not have been kept in check. However, now that America has asserted dominance over the world as the Great Power, please state why such a military presence on the order of the Cold War era is such a necessity.

[IronParrot]

"There were three main things that led to the adoption of the Constitution. One - to provide for the common defense, two - to make treaties and regulate imports and exports, three - to settle disputes between states. The US didn't even have a income tax until 1913. Anything NOT specified in the Constitution is supposed to be left up to the states. The Constitution can not even be changed without 2/3 of the states approving it."

Yes, I understand all that, but you still haven't told me why the federal government is so in need of providing this "common defense" when you have failed to cite one credible threat to American sovereignty today.

"The US gave Cuba it's freedom. I think they voted on it the same as Puerto Rico does every couple of years. The Soviet Union then supported the cuban revolution which brought Castro into power. If Kennedy had actually taken a hard stand and not backed out of the Bay of Pigs - the Cubans would not be risking their lives to get to the US."

You're wrong on several counts. The US gave Cuba its freedom? Yeah, by turning it into the Las Vegas of the day and repressing its people economically through huge gambling establishments. Also, Castro was not backed by the Soviet Union until after he was successfully elected following the Cuban Revolution. Furthermore, the Cubans risking their lives to get to the US were the ones largely in cahoots with the Batista in the first place. The Cubans wanted Castro in power, and you fail to address that.

"We didn't install the Taliban. We had an indirect affect because we pulled out of Afganistan because the we were no longer fighting the Soviets. Yes - a lot of things were done during the Cold Wra to limit Soviet expansion, but now hopefully some of thayt damage can be fixed. I am hoping that we will fix some of the past mistakes. We have fixed the Taliban."

You haven't fixed the Taliban's effects. The United States has failed to act on any of its promises to establish democratic order in Afghanistan. Right now the conditions are just as they were under the Taliban, only the mobs rule instead.

"The only reason that is ridiculous is because they know that we will crush them. If the US was weak - do you really think they'd see any reason not to be even more belligerent and threaten their neighbors?" (on N. Korea having the biggest military in the world

I fail to see how this demonstrates that North Korea would have the biggest military in the world, which is a claim I still find preposterous.

"Yes - the military was big - but it was antiquated."

And what about when you subsequently found out in Somalia that your cool technology wasn't nearly as useful on an urban scale? That's one of the major tactical concerns regarding Iraq at this very moment.

For the record: I support war in Iraq (under certain prevailing conditions), I'm ardently anti-communist, I don't consider myself anti-American, but I still don't see the justification for increased military spending in the United States, when even the status quo military capacity is more than enough to assert global dominance as the Great Power du Jour.

Speculative paranoia hardly constitutes such justification.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Yes, I understand all that, but you still haven't told me why the federal government is so in need of providing this "common defense" when you have failed to cite one credible threat to American sovereignty today.

There is always a threat in the world. And there are many threats around the world. We have to obviously be in multiple places at the same time at this moment.

You haven't fixed the Taliban's effects. The United States has failed to act on any of its promises to establish democratic order in Afghanistan. Right now the conditions are just as they were under the Taliban, only the mobs rule instead.

It takes time to institute democracy. How many times has Canada brought democracy to a country? We brought it to Germany and to Japan - and it took YEARS. I do hope we get it right in the Middle East. I hope we don't back out of Afganistan.

And what about when you subsequently found out in Somalia that your cool technology wasn't nearly as useful on an urban scale? That's one of the major tactical concerns regarding Iraq at this very moment.

We were unprepared for the urban conflict. It was disorganised, etc. As people are so fund of saying - you learn from your mistakes. Urban combat is now one of the MAIN training courses for the military.

For the record: I support war in Iraq (under certain prevailing conditions), I'm ardently anti-communist, I don't consider myself anti-American, but I still don't see the justification for increased military spending in the United States, when even the status quo military capacity is more than enough to assert global dominance as the Great Power du Jour.

Well actually the military budget doesn't just cover the planes and all that. It covers the transport of our weaponry and troops. About 60% of the money needed for Iraq is in getting the troops there and then getting them back out. This is ALL part of the military budget.

Speculative paranoia hardly constitutes such justification.

So I guess we should just wait until Hussien actually sells his weapons to a terrorist group or has enough where he threatens the world like North Korea is doing now. No one denies he has these chemicals. Even the anti-war demonstrators stand up and say this. I personally don't want to be waiting around for things to happen TO us for us to take action. We did that. The world has repeatedly done that - all it has done is caused bigger conflicts in the end.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I don't seem to remember when the United States ever had a referendum on military spending. And your last election was pretty split down the middle, too. So I don't see how the American people even have a cohesive voice here.

Well considering the president ONLY proposes the budget I really don't know what you mean. CONGRESS passes the budget. This is where people not understanding the way our government works get in trouble when they keep saying that the 2000 election was close. The presidency is only ONE branch and has NO real control over spending. CONGRESS holds the purse strings.

First of all, if you look at foreign aid in terms of the percentage of your GDP, the claim isn't nearly as impressive. Secondly, this is a circular argument - other countries don't supply a military force because the US has so many troops to send. Why sacrifice lives when the American government will do it for you, right? So if you want to see more foreign involvement, then the Americans perhaps shouldn't play such a big role. You'll certainly disagree with that, so I think this is a contradiction on your part.

Well we tried to let Europe handle Bosnia - but they couldn't. We had to go in there.

Essentially, the US has a big military, so other countries think they don't have to. I live in Canada so I know this for a fact. May I also remind you that, evening everything out a bit, the US owes the UN billions in dues.

We, against my beliefs, paid off most of our dues - if not all of them. I think we should leave the UN all together. I just hope that we charge the UN for the use of our military.

So NORAD is suddenly insufficient? I don't think another Star Wars is worth your tax money, to tell you the truth. Aside from that, what you've said here is pretty agreeable.

NORAD is completely different - it can't shoot down missiles. All it does is report that missiles have been launced. The president then gets a call saying they have incoming ICBMs - he then gives the order to launch our missiles at offending nation. End of story. I would much rather have a system that permits us destroy them - without us having to use our missiles.

The fact that the Soviet Union was institutionalized and centralized the way it was contradicts Marxist communism at a basic level. Not only were the economic policies vastly divergent in several ways, but the nationalized structure of the Soviet economy isn't anything close to the "worldwide communism" Marx envisioned. It was protectionist. Like I said earlier, this logic of yours also implies that the Americans would have invaded the Soviet Union if the latter didn't have a military.

I agree that the Soviet Union wasn't true communism - for one thing true communism is an impossibility.

No we would not have invaded the Soviet Union. But the US was never out for world domination. We didn't have any countries which we controlled like the Soviet Union did. We had allies. Yes we used our military force to keep the Soviet Union in check - someone the hell had to.

I'm not saying the US shouldn't have a military at all. I'm just saying that it goes far beyond necessity. If American soil was for the taking, with no resistance, of course anybody would invade it. That's a pointless argument. Fundamentally, however, invasion of the United States was clearly not on China's agenda. The onus is on you to prove otherwise, and speculation isn't proof. Canada had a strong economy, and not much of a military after WWII. Nobody invaded Canada.

They wouldn't invade Canada because the US protects you guys.

It's true that without your military, the Soviet Union would not have been kept in check. However, now that America has asserted dominance over the world as the Great Power, please state why such a military presence on the order of the Cold War era is such a necessity.

Just becuase the Soviet Union doesn't exist - doesn't mean there aren't rogue states out there trying to build up and become the next Germany or Soviet Union or Empirial Japan. The US military is called up from all over the world. If our military was only stationed in the US and we had to be somewhere to help out somewhere - it would take a long time to mobolise and get the troops there. If we pulled out of South Korea - how long do you think it would be before North Korea attempts to come across the border? Would the US be able to get there in time to prevent anything. I agree that 70,000 US troops isn't much when it comes to stopping North Korea - but it's more than nothing. Would Canada or Europe be willing to pick up the tab for moving our troops around the world?

[markedel]

Well Congress is republican controlled-so the spiraling deficit is now in their lap, but regardless...

Canada is seen as decentralized because the large social programs-especially health care, are provincially administered. Also Canada is far more regionalized then the U.S. The PM has to heed the demands of Premiers (think Governors) more often then not. Also Quebec especially has a lot of provincial power-which other provinces want. And Parliament itself is quite regionally divided, the parties are based in specific regions both in terms of seats and popular vote.

This is not an entirely bad thing-unlike the U.S the PM has very few constraints at the Federal level. The American President is, as jerseydevil points out far less powerful domestically then he would like (or people assume) and does not necessarily set the size of the U.S military. But Presidents do have the most leeway in foreing affairs-perhaps a reason why the U.S is more activist externally.


The American military can be argued as overkill, but it's not nearly the overkill some would assume. The U.S won the cold war by outspending the Soviets (who still had to devote a far larger level of GDP merely to maintain its army).

Now the UN has its problems-it certainly doesn't do it what it is supposed to do (which is make the world safe for the veto powers-for all its good works) but withdrawing seems counterproductive. Sure it makes the UN irrelevant, but the U.S has absolutely no international goodwill at present. American arguements that "you should like us, we're good and stuff" don't help-though I must admit the alternatives (a different ending to the cold war/China) are not particularly pleasant if you are a liberal (in the classical sense of the word).

[Helix]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Personally - I don't actually find that to be a perfect world though. There would be no insentive to better yourself or do anything beyond the minimum.

Not that I would be able to start a company - since all companies would be owned by the state - but why would I want to take the risk if I could? There would be no HDTV or Cable or anything unless it served the state. Consumer products would not exist. There would be no need for stereo when it brings no additional benefits really than mono. We have stereo and color TVs and dishwashers because companies have spent time inventing these things and because consumers wanted them.

Unless I'm wrong, the idea of Marxist communism is that eventually the government would essentially dissapear, and people / businesses would self regulate, everybody knowing what the right thing to do was. So no, the state wouldn't own everything, and you would be able to have the HDTV - you probably would never get a chance to be super-rich and have every good thing, as the wealth would be more equally split. Hope I've made sense...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Helix
Unless I'm wrong, the idea of Marxist communism is that eventually the government would essentially dissapear, and people / businesses would self regulate, everybody knowing what the right thing to do was. So no, the state wouldn't own everything, and you would be able to have the HDTV - you probably would never get a chance to be super-rich and have every good thing, as the wealth would be more equally split. Hope I've made sense...

Who is going to have the incentive to do the research necessary to invent HDTV? Why should I spend time trying to invent HDTV - which in initial development to get there would have no benefits? We still wouldn't have electric lighting if we lived under communism, because there would have been no incentive for Edison to invent it.

Yes - under communism there is supposed to be no government - by the term "state" I'm referring to the people who make up the country. Under communism the government is the people and unless it benefits the general community directly - things don't happen. Communism is essentially a commune without leaders. The problem is that in reality not everyone's work is equal. Believe me - if I couldn't benefit from my hard work - I would not waste my time programming or constantly studying to increase my skills. Computers change so fast that it's constant learnign new skills. There isn't too much to flipping a hamburger or picking up the garbage - although there is a need for those services. The majority of people would do the minimum to get by - which means that innovations would come slowly because you'd have less people seeing a need to push themselves.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
Well Congress is republican controlled-so the spiraling deficit is now in their lap, but regardless...

Congress is basically split down the middle - there is no sure thing in having things passed in Congress. All you have to do is just look at the trouble of getting th federal judge position filled in Washington DC.

Canada is seen as decentralized because the large social programs-especially health care, are provincially administered. Also Canada is far more regionalized then the U.S. The PM has to heed the demands of Premiers (think Governors) more often then not. Also Quebec especially has a lot of provincial power-which other provinces want. And Parliament itself is quite regionally divided, the parties are based in specific regions both in terms of seats and popular vote.

This is not an entirely bad thing-unlike the U.S the PM has very few constraints at the Federal level. The American President is, as jerseydevil points out far less powerful domestically then he would like (or people assume) and does not necessarily set the size of the U.S military. But Presidents do have the most leeway in foreing affairs-perhaps a reason why the U.S is more activist externally.

I don't want a powerful president domestically. The president is kept in check by Congress and both are kept in check by the Supreme Court.

The House of Representatives - REPRESENT their districts (at least they're supposed to be). I don't want my representative worrying about California. They represent only me and my district in Congress and to the federal government. The House of Representatives is based on population. The Senate is similar except that every state gets 2 senators. Both the House and Senate keep each other in check also. No bill can go before congress without first being approved by the House - but in order for it to go to the president - it must pass the Senate. If it's a constitutional change then it must go before the states. 2/3 of the states must approve it - as well as 2/3 of the Congress.

The American military can be argued as overkill, but it's not nearly the overkill some would assume. The U.S won the cold war by outspending the Soviets (who still had to devote a far larger level of GDP merely to maintain its army).

Now the UN has its problems-it certainly doesn't do it what it is supposed to do (which is make the world safe for the veto powers-for all its good works) but withdrawing seems counterproductive. Sure it makes the UN irrelevant, but the U.S has absolutely no international goodwill at present. American arguements that "you should like us, we're good and stuff" don't help-though I must admit the alternatives (a different ending to the cold war/China) are not particularly pleasant if you are a liberal (in the classical sense of the word).

We do have "international goodwill" - it's just that we're doing things differently than what was done in the past. We were attacked on 9/11 and we're going to take proactive role in the Middle East where these terrorists have come from. I don't agree with everything - but I do NOT want to see rogue states ballooning into the situation we now have to try dealing with North Korea. The European powers sit on things until they blow up in your face - such as North Korea and Germany. We're working to bring change about. Change is not going to come to the Middle East without forcing it.

I am glad that we have a large military because of the way the REAL world is. In reality I would like the US to just worry about ourselves. Bring the military home and defend our borders. If North Korea attacks South Korea - well then I guess Europe's "huge" military will have to take care of it. If the Middle East breaks out in huge wars - then again someone else can take care of it. Europe gets most of their oil from the Middle East - so Europe has a far higher stake in there than we do. I still feel sorry for Isreal though because without the US protection they'd be history within a week.

[markedel]

I'd argue it be worse then that-with out U.S guarantees Israel would be forced into a war that would go nuclear swiftly (Israel not being that large) and the entire middle east would go up in smoke. I suppose the question is whether one believes even more overt guarantees (i.e stationed troops as there is now) acts as a stabilizer or a provocation. There are arguements for both size. I'd say the risk is larger without the troops-no U.S troops in the gulf and baghdad would go for Riyadh (and arguably Tehran would try for Bahrain and the like).

[markedel]

I'd argue it be worse then that-with out U.S guarantees Israel would be forced into a war that would go nuclear swiftly (Israel not being that large) and the entire middle east would go up in smoke. I suppose the question is whether one believes even more overt guarantees (i.e stationed troops as there is now) acts as a stabilizer or a provocation. There are arguements for both size. I'd say the risk is larger without the troops-no U.S troops in the gulf and baghdad would go for Riyadh (and arguably Tehran would try for Bahrain and the like).

I have some idea how Congress works-I realize party lines are far weaker in the U.S system. It must be said that it severly weakens U.S governance, but you would say that is a good thing. I happen to be in favor of a more activist state, though I envy the fact that American politics is so balanced. In Canada the PM's power can be enormous if he wished (when Canada got hit by terrorism-one guy got kidnapped) the PM at the time declared martial law in Quebec, arrested scores of people without cause or trial, sent troops in to ensure order etc. And this was for what in hindsight seems to be quite little. But Canadians don't like to remember such things, I suppose.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
I have some idea how Congress works-I realize party lines are far weaker in the U.S system. It must be said that it severly weakens U.S governance, but you would say that is a good thing. I happen to be in favor of a more activist state, though I envy the fact that American politics is so balanced.

In terms of the political parties - there are big differences between them - it's just that as with anything the majority of the people are in the middle. In order to get elected you must be supported by that majority. If you are too far right - you don't get elected - if you're too far left - you don't get elected. The only point left is the center - within that center there are still strong differences though.

In terms of the balance of power - the US Government was set up to LIMIT the government's power. The government is set up to work slowly - not to move in drastic turns with the severe swings which public opinion often does. By forcing the government to negoiate amongst all the different branches and competing interests - hopefully what comes out is a more balanced government. I'm just rather upset that so much power was given to the federal goverment in the early 1900's. Now that they have it - it's much harder to reign it in. The states in my opinion should be the back bone of the government.

There are some shortcomings in the way our government was set up. Most of it stems from the fact that the founding fathers didn't foresee the transportation and speed of communication we have today. Now instead of lobbying for what is good for their district or state - people can set up countrywide lobbying. During the late 1700's it took a week to get from Boston to Philadelphia. Now it's a 4 hour train ride.

Instead of Congress fighting for their constituents who voted them in, and I'm not talking about getting pork projects for their states, they worry about country wide perception too much. As far as I'm concerned - NJ representatives should NOT be listening to anyone outside of New Jersey. They're supposed to be representing MY concerns to the federal government.

In Canada the PM's power can be enormous if he wished (when Canada got hit by terrorism-one guy got kidnapped) the PM at the time declared martial law in Quebec, arrested scores of people without cause or trial, sent troops in to ensure order etc. And this was for what in hindsight seems to be quite little. But Canadians don't like to remember such things, I suppose.

I never even heard about that. So many people remind the US what we did during World War II by sending Americans of Japanese ancestory to camps. It seems like some Americans want to beat ourselves up for our mistakes - while other countries just push things under the rug and don't talk about their mistakes.

It's illegal in the US for the military to ge involved in domestic affairs. That even came up during the Washington sniper man hunt. The military was able to supply technology and so forth such as helicopters to patrol areas - but civilian agency personnel had to be running the show and physically in those helicopters. The military would have been unable to take any direct action - only the civilian agency would have been permitted to apprehend the snipers.

[markedel]

Canada also deported Japanese Canadians (they did not get the vote until 1948, I believe). Canada isn't perfect, and I don't think we cliam to be. I think the main problem in terms of the relations between the U.S and the world is perceptions. That is the U.S seems to be going out of its way to magnify what looks bad while deemphasizing all the good things they have done. The truth is that the wrangling over the UN is not over Iraq-after all Russia, France and Germany are not pacifists, but over the current balance of power. They are trying to limit American power for the (good or bad take your pick) sake of limiting American power. But the U.S has not cast it as such so the "pro-peace" (in of itself a loaded term) movement sees anti-American opposition as opposing war, as opposed to opposing an American War.