09-06-2004, 03:58 AM
Quote:What you had said before was something like "the U.S. military spends less %GDP on the militray than a lot of other countries, it's just more powerful because it has more money". By itself, that argument says that the U.S. should spend more on the military just to have a big military at all costs.Who needs calming down now Mr. Exaggerator? By the point alone of the %GDP shows it is not "at all costs", it is at a realitively low cost. Considering what wars cost I think 4% to just maintain is a bargain.
Quote:It ignores whether that military is actually used for something. I suggested you calm down because you seemed to by scared in the back of your mind of something serious happening for no reason other than having a smaller military.So you are saying we should forget what humans have learned from THOUSANDS of years of warfare because the last real threat went away about 10 and a half years ago? This is being a little over idealistic to assume nobody is going to be gunning for the "Ruler of the World" title again, and the next time, it's a sure bet they are going to try to go through us first (Indeed, I would argue that is exactly what Muslim fundamentalists are trying to do). History is littered with civilizations that did not fail because their government was not firmly in place, but because their military tactics and hardware was left to decay. Your suggestion then, is to dump America on this pile and leave great humanitarian nations like China to pick up the slack.
Quote:I don't really know what's going on with Iraq right now, so I'm not going to argue about that, but the aergument that the military needs more money because soldiers need more supplies is a much better one than that the U.S. should spend more money because it's %GDP is lower.I would argue a country's "need" is based precisely on it's GDP. The more valueable your country is, the more modivation there is for another to take it away. Again, there are a few THOUSAND years of history to back up that statement.