speech bit

[Nystul]

Sorry, I disagree. Some of us are taxed enough, I think my income taxes+FICA are now at 45% of my income. But, 40% of Americans pay no income tax, and in fact if you factor in the earned income tax credit, and the newer child tax credit, 1/5 of Americans get more money back on their tax return than they paid in. The top 1/5 of income earners in the US pay 82% of all income taxes.

Just for the sake of completeness though, everyone with an income pays FICA, which can't be wiped out by deductions, and is a lot more than the credits you mentioned. So even the poor folks give almost 10% of their paycheck to Uncle Sam (not counting any other "entitlement" money Uncle Sam may be giving them, of course).

I can't speak for all Americans, but I think it's safe to say that most of us generally don't like tax increases. An aweful lot of us would like the government to spend less, rather than more. So for Kerry to run on this is a bit of a gamble. He needs his social proposals to be very popular so that people will think it is worth the extra tax burden. Of course he will also try to play the role of Robin Hood, raising the tax only on the rich so that he can give his programs to the needy. It is worth noting that if Kerry does get elected, he isn't going to be able to pass much of anything through a conservative Congress. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad... when Clinton was President and the Congress shifted to the Republicans, they froze government spending for months (years?) fighting over the budgets and we had our best economy in recent memory :P

Of course, Eppie is right that under Bush we are spending an aweful lot on the military and homeland security. I don't think any of us our eager to pay more taxes for those things either. However, military and anti-terrorism don't seem to fall under the "optional" category in the wake of the attack on New York city. Kerry even criticizes Bush for not doing enough about terrorism. The financing for Iraq is going to have to be there for either candidate as well, because Kerry also acknowledges that since we are there, we can't pull out until some kind of stability is in place.

[Occhidiangela]

Sorry to dig a line out of a paragraph.

However, military and anti-terrorism don't seem to fall under the "optional" category in the wake of the attack on New York city.

It was never optional before then either. A matter of how much, and how. Thorny problems. Not everything can be priority one.

Kerry even criticizes Bush for not doing enough about terrorism. The financing for Iraq is going to have to be there for either candidate as well, because Kerry also acknowledges that since we are there, we can't pull out until some kind of stability is in place

It is not the critic who counts, but the man in the arena, etc. Yes, we as a nation do indeed owe Iraq something substantial.

"If you break it, you buy it."

Sound byte? Yes. But I must say I agree with Secretary of State Powell on that score.

Occhi

[Sir_Die_alot]

I admit "There can be no dialog because Kerry denies being anti-millitary!" is a simplistic. I figured it was a given because it is laid so bare by the amount he is attacked on it and his lack of responce.

Kerry's tatic has been this: He says he is not anti-military and supports the troops. The Bush campaign comes up with reason after reason (see convention quotes) to refute this. Kerry then says he is not anti-military, supports the troops, served in Vietnam, points out Bush only served in the National Guard and was never called to serve in Vietnam.

Well, he did try to refute it at least once. That's where we get the "I actually voted for [it]... before I voted against it." quote. :P

[Sir_Die_alot]

"I would argue a country's "need" is based precisely on it's GDP... Again, there are a few THOUSAND years of history to back up that statement."

Here again you are taking my over-simplified statement and insisting that makes it false. The fact you cut out "The more valueable your country is, the more modivation there is for another to take it away.", shows you don't totally disagree with that and needed to modify it to fit your statements better.

Wars happen for 3 main reasons: economic, religious, and political. Normally the last 2 are fed one way or another by the first. As long as god or government keeps you content, there isn't a strong footing for war. Obviously looting to make your country more ritch is still a modivation. GDP was a simple way for me to state "a nations value" . (Keep in mind where the original topic was at.)

So, for instance, Czechoslovakia didn't need a very large military to fend off Hitler, because its GDP was low, but modern Japan needs an enormous military, because of its high GDP. Brazil should be armed to the teeth, but Syria has very little need for a military. Nobody in Sudan needs an army, because they aren't really producing very much at all, but Germany? Load up the luftwaffe

The countrys you listed that have large GDPS and small militarys have strong allies that take the weight off their own economy. If we told Japan to shove it, do you really think they would keep their military spending as low as it is?

As for WWII Czechoslovakia, a country in the center of Europe like that is kind of a must have for someone bent on controling the whole landmass.

Indeed, had Napoleon not wanted to lose the battle of Waterloo, all he had to do was obliterate the French economy. Then his need for an army would have been zero, and he wouldn't have lost. (Edit: Okay, so technically, your argument would not be that he wouldn't lose per se, but that Wellington wouldn't have had any further reason to bother beating him, what with France being worthless.)

No my point would be that the victors, even with a ruined French economy had a lot to gain. Most of Europe is a nice grab, even if you have to wait a couple years to exploit it.

Perhaps you might show me where in history, these *thousands* of years, that proves this previously unproven direct correlation between military need and GDP? Might I suggest that one's military needs correlate more accurately with the force your opponents can bring to bear on you, and that this seldom has anything to do with your GDP?

How about your own example: Napoleon. He rose to power because France was broke from a corrupt greedy government. War is about taking or gaining something. Even if it is not monitary directly, one fought with no eventual gain I would consider to be the measure of a true loss.

[kandrathe]

well that is actually a very social thing, very good I would say.

:D I guess we are more socialist than you thought.

You make it seem like the government takes taxes from people just for the benefit of the one in charge?? Sorry but we're not living in the middle ages anymore when farmers needed to give "taxes" to the king, for which they would get absolutely nothing in return.

Ah, but the peasants did get something in return. The kingdom was defended, and the peasants were allowed to live. But, if you count all things including military aid for other nations (like Turkey, Isreal, Germany, Japan), then discretionary Defense Spending on accounts for 17% of the outlays. In my opinion, "defense", is the primary job of the US government. If they get that wrong, the rest does not matter. Now, I'm not talking about non-defense stuff that gets done, like in Somalia, in the name of defense.

To me take 60 % from somebody that earns 400.000 dollares per year is not really that shocking.

Hmmm, well that is a difference between us. The government takes $240,000 from an individual just because they were more industrious and you don't think that's a problem. We may not have much sympathy for them as they are very well off, but by no stretch would I ever consider that to be fair. Would you consider it a crime if a person robbed that amount of property from the rich person. No. Just because the government makes a law saying they can take half your earnings, doesn't make it any fairer.

[Minionman]

What the federal government needs to do is focus on protecting the citizens from terrorism. Everything else is gravy.

I'm assuming you really mean "spends a lot of money on is protecting the U.S. from terrorists, keeping crime down, run any other things the military might do, etc. everything else it spends a lot of money on is gravy" In which case I say that the government also should run and/or regulate other things that don't have profits to get companies to do them, but need a lot of money, such as roads, telephone lines, etc. to remote places without many people and education for examples. You may have been thinking this too. But the main point is that the government should be doing a lot more than just foreign affairs and the military because it controls a lot of money but is here for qa different reason than othert groups/organizations that control a lot of money.

I'd argue that health care is more important right now than terrorist attacks, since terrorist attacks have killed a few thousand early, but health problems can kill a few million early. If whatever health system seems to work the best involves the government, than the government should get involved. The major worry is more finding a way to get healthcare to work better. Here is where people go and get the stastics on different health costs, where monsy goes, how insurance companies work, etc.

[kandrathe]

Some things are concerns, but secondary concerns. The question I ask is whether the federal government should be involved in them. Some things are better done at a state or local level. When it comes to international affairs, certainly the federal government has the responsibility. But, other things like social security, health insurance, or infrastructure should be handled at a state level or local level if possible. The government makes big noise about stuff like broad band internet for all areas, but really, the spread here has been phenomenal and within a few years everyone will have it. Why? It makes good business sense, so companies are investing in getting everyone wired.

The problem sometimes with federal approach is that the money gets spread evenly, even if that doesn't make any sense. Using homeland security as an example; The state of Washington bought a multi-million dollar hazmat facility that was put into moth balls with no one trained to use it, while vulnerable targeted places like Los Angeles and NYC are reeling from the increased costs of defending their infrastructures. Northern states needs more highway funding because the freezing and thawing cycles destroy our roads very quickly, but in order to get the funding we need here, we have one of the highest state gasoline taxes in the nation. Another weather related cost is heating oil, we *must* provide heating for people, even when they cannot afford it as it is a matter of life and death. So, in most ways it makes no sense to treat Maine and Hawaii similiarly.

I'd argue that health care is more important right now than terrorist attacks, since terrorist attacks have killed a few thousand early, but health problems can kill a few million early.

I'd say that the biggest health problems in the US are that too many people are snarfing on the nacho's and not getting up off the couch to get a little exercise. OBL and heart disease are bad for your health. I don't want to wake up in ten years and find the US has the same kinds of terrorism problems that exist in Isreal. I would really hate that.

[eppie]

:D I guess we are more socialist than you thought.

Ah, but the peasants did get something in return.  The kingdom was defended, and the peasants were allowed to live.  But, if you count all things including military aid for other nations (like Turkey, Isreal, Germany, Japan), then discretionary Defense Spending on accounts for 17% of the outlays.  In my opinion, "defense", is the primary job of the US government.  If they get that wrong, the rest does not matter.  Now, I'm not talking about non-defense stuff that gets done, like in Somalia, in the name of defense.



Hmmm, well that is a difference between us.  The government takes $240,000 from an individual just because they were more industrious and you don't think that's a problem.  We may not have much sympathy for them as they are very well off, but by no stretch would I ever consider that to be fair.  Would you consider it a crime if a person robbed that amount of property from the rich person.  No.  Just because the government makes a law saying they can take half your earnings, doesn't make it any fairer.

Hmmm, well that is a difference between us. The government takes $240,000 from an individual just because they were more industrious and you don't think that's a problem. We may not have much sympathy for them as they are very well off, but by no stretch would I ever consider that to be fair

I am not saying I don't have sympathy for somebody that is well off. But as I said, people with the better jobs, let alone people that own companies, benefit a lot more from a good economy, better roads etc. They are usually benefitting from the fact that everybody (also people that are less well off) can have money to spend (in their shop for example). If no taxes would be paid, a company which for example exports cargo by road has to spend a lot more money on maintaining their trucks etc.etc. They for sure would pay their management a lot less money.

The percentage paid by people with different incomes is always under discussion but I think that it is better that somebody who earns 400.000 pays more than somebody who makes 20.000. (I mean, the latter person maybe less inteligent, less fortunate or whatever but also work like hell for 50 hours per week).

And let me leave it with the following statement.: because I'm politcially left from the middel I will always be for higher taxes on top-incomes than there are at the moment.

[Jester]

"Well, he did try to refute it at least once. That's where we get the "I actually voted for [it]... before I voted against it." quote. "

But that's how the Senate works. Being a Senator isn't like being a Governor, or a President. Your vote is tradeable. Bills are malleable, and have nine lives. Funding bills need to be approved or rejected, which is related but distinctly different from actual policy. Everyone in the Senate has a completely crazy voting record. That's how the system works. Sometimes you'll support a thing in principle, and (in Kerry's case) actually have a similar, alternate proposal. So you'll vote against it, hoping to support the similar alternative. But what does that mean to someone making an attack ad? That you voted "against" the thing, implying opposition to the principle as well as the details. Maybe all you didn't like was the ins and outs of the funding. Or maybe you thought there was a better time or way to go about the same thing. Who knows.

The Senate is complicated. Accusations in speeches are not. John Kerry's record, like pretty much every Senator's record, is decidedly mixed.

Jester

[Jester]

"Ask Kaiser Wilhelm, turn of the century, about an arms race in re the German High Seas Fleet. You are confusing Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD, and well named), the intercontinental missiles and bombers, with tactical nukes -- which can of course lead to escalation to MAD if used, under the rubric of "Hey, he used it first!""

No, don't ask those people. They lived in a time where both sides could use maximum force, with no need for scaling, and neither side would be completely annhilated.

Once the US reaches the level where any target, from a city block to the entire planet, can be blown to pieces without much trouble, the US (or any similarly armed power) must play games unrelated to total strength. Sure, cat and mouse with smaller payload tactical nuclear weapons. But what will that lead to? Does having more power help you in those confrontations? Not really, since any sane person would have to acknowledge that you have vastly more destructive power than you are unleashing, on both sides.

Of course, you could always adopt the Israeli strategy, and cultivate a touch of insanity. That might help. But more weapons? Not really. If you wanted your target dead, they'd be dead a thousand times over. Soon, it won't even matter what size the target is.

"In case you forgot, about 20 months ago, President Bush and Putin signed the accord that will see both powers reduce their nuke arsenals by 70 percent over the next 10 years. Were you "no blood for oil" to loudly to notice?"

Uh, I don't recall having actually said that at any point. Nor have I participated in a single protest in my life. Or was that more a rhetorical question?

First, nobody actually ever really follows through on promises that drastic. But, even if they did, what of it? What nation could ever stand against even 30% of either the US' or Russia's arsenal? That's kinda my point; once you cross the threshold of MAD, there's not really anywhere left to go.

"Absent that sort of grudging understanding, the need to defend against nuclear weapons is very real if you don't want to be liable to nuclear blackmail or significant destruction. THAT is why the missile defense scheme is being pursued."

"Please don't add to that principled stance an ignorance of how power is manipulated, and how threat is used and will continue to be used in geopolitics. Geopolitics is played by jungle rules. The UN is a nice facade over a very dirty and below the belt game."

Of course Geopolitics is dirty. Duh. But "let's have a mutual annhilation" dirty? Nobody who seeks power wants to commit suicide. Attacking with less than MAD power is even dumber, since it means "AD" without the "M". Sure, it can be used for blackmail. But is there any way around that? I think 9/11 (and a thousand terrorist attacks prior) proved that there's no way to stop everything. Want a "silver bullet", that theoretically solves all problems, but in reality just makes you complacent? Try the Missile Shield. Boat a nuke into a harbour. Truck it across from Mexico, or Canada. Build it with 5th column agents inside the target location. Find a way to blind the system for the required three seconds. Cause a distraction. Build a better nuclear-tipped mousetrap. Who knows, there must be a million possible ways to detonate a nuke (or 20) without any chance of "star wars" stopping it. If an enemy has a nuke, they can blackmail you. Period. If you don't like it, you have the threat of your own arsenal. If you want to call their bluff, I hope you like your steak well done.

Invincibility in a nuclear world is impossible, as of current technology. As I said, I can't see any technology that could stop every (or even most) ways of getting nukes to their targets. Conventional forces are as useful against nukes as ants are against the magnifying glass. "Star Wars" only helps if they're stupid enough to attack in the way you're equipped to defend, a la Maginot Line, and that seems to be presuming a great deal more than is reasonable. This is *especially* true in a multilateral world where nukes are easy to build and the strike could come from anywhere (and may not even be traceable). People play dirty. If you spend all your cash on a helmet, they're going to aim for the nuts.

Where is the hope here? What can increased funding do? How is it going to solve the fundamental issues? Are you just hoping people won't attack you if your power goes from "superlative" to "superlative plus"?

Jester

[Jester]

"As for WWII Czechoslovakia, a country in the center of Europe like that is kind of a must have for someone bent on controling the whole landmass."

Yes, exactly. Czechosolvakia was rich *strategically*, a concept which has nothing to do with GDP, and everything to do with geography. Its military needs, like Switzerland's, were quite great, because people wanted to conquer them. Their military needs were proportional to the strength of *those people who wanted to conquer them*. No economics at all here. Even then, why did Germany attack it then? Might it have something to do with Hitler, again, not an economic force? Why did Germany want to conquer at all? And were its military needs not influenced by Nazi ideology as much as by their economic (or other) situation?

Perhaps there might be an argument "Military needs are relative to the comparative value between a group and their neighbours." But even that has terrible holes in it. Hezbollah isn't worth squat all, in any real sense. What creates their military need is not their value, but their attempt to attain it. And Israel would have to spend less on its army if they didn't have to fight them over something which only has comparative value because Hezbollah wants it. Military needs are relative to the strength of your opponents. That's it. Why they are your opponents is another question, and one which is nowhere near as simple as your "value", even speaking inclusively.

Jester

[Jester]

"The Threat based readiness model is not only outdated, it is reactive, and guarantees one remains behind one's "threat.""

I didn't say you had to be stupid about it. It's not just based on their *current* power, but also on their *potential* power. All aspects of "threat" are important, and preventing a threat is as valuable as countering it. Indeed, much more valuable in a nuclear world.

But, if it isn't threat, broadly speaking, what else could it be about? I can't see anything else while remaining in the category of "defensive war". I suppose you could want a powerful army for conquest, or intimidation (to get things, rather than negate threats).

Jester

[Minionman]

I'd say that the biggest health problems in the US are that too many people are snarfing on the nacho's and not getting up off the couch to get a little exercise. OBL and heart disease are bad for your health. I don't want to wake up in ten years and find the US has the same kinds of terrorism problems that exist in Isreal. I would really hate that.

You left out things like diseases and accidents that are hard to avoid even with lifestyle changes which health insurance is useful for.

Obviously, just because health care is "more important" than terrorism doesn't mean that the government focuses only on that.

  But, other things like social security, health insurance, or infrastructure should be handled at a state level or local level if possible.

Here you run into problems of states having more money compared to those services or less money. Such problems are less likely at a higher level. In your gasoline tax description, the tax would be there no matter who builds the roads. Peerhaps money gets spread around evenly, but with some things the government spends money on, states would get funded in a way that doesn't work as well as even funding. Better funding is more possible at a higher level than lower level.

Now I guess this is something we just don't agree on, so I'll probably stop posting on this particular section of this thread.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Are you trying to agree with me here

Wars happen for 3 main reasons: economic, religious, and political. Normally the last 2 are fed one way or another by the first. As long as god or government keeps you content, there isn't a strong footing for war. Obviously looting to make your country more ritch is still a modivation. GDP was a simple way for me to state "a nations value" . (Keep in mind where the original topic was at.)

or are you practicing your typing skills? I find it interesting you always seem to pick 1 statement to pick apart, rather than a full post. Do you even bother to read them in full?

What creates their military need is not their value, but their attempt to attain it.

We are really going to go in a circle now if that's your argument. :unsure:

[Sir_Die_alot]

That's well and good, but one needs to keep track of how they vote and vote trade because they are responsible for those decisions. Kerry is doing his best to abdicate his responsibility of his votes. I'll wait until the debates to see if he gets away with it.

[Occhidiangela]

A nation's security includes what to do about, how to deal with, security problems large to small. The AD part of MAD is still possible, though low probability; the "significant emotional event" is still with us; and the "significant emotional nuclear event that is not the end of all creation" is still with us.

Your reasoning borders on the absurd. The maturity of missile technology has lent itself to an uneven risk-loss equation in the multilateral geopolitics power puzzle, where nuclear warheads are concerned. For a few decades, risk loss balance was reasonably equal for two parties, and all others had to live with it. Now, there are more players at the table. That adds to instability and risk, it does NOT decrease it. What is an easier problem to solve, Jester, a two variable problem, a five variable problem, or a 25 variable problem?

As to the "Missile Defense Shield" and other money sinks.

If one protects against the boat in the harbor nuke rather than the missile nuke, one is open to anyone who can lob a missile at you. If you protect against the missile rather than the boat in the harbor, the boat in the harbor can blow you up. You have to deal with both, not either-or. If you assert that the boat is being ignored, than I can only suggest that you are ignorant of how our governmental agencies interact to deal with secutiry threats. Is any funded to a zero defects standard? Nope, and neither is yours in Canada. Risk: how much can you stomach?

Is the missile shield, if it works, or if it ever works, a good answer? Don't know yet. Your line seems to be that a treaty would be equal protection, and of course cheaper, however treaties are breachable, as any contract is, and then where are you? A treaty is a different kind of, and quite possibley part of a menu of, security arrangement. The North Atlantic Treaty is one such.

Given the instability and general skullduggery of geopolitics, any sovereign nation who does not take control of its security posture is ASKING FOR TROUBLE. The ability to destroy is increasing on the conventional side. Setting aside nukes, I suggest, yet again, that you ask Kaiser Wilhelm about the problems of a conventional arms race. It is alive and well today. The risk is, on many sides, that no one really wants to use a nuke. At least, pretty much nobody does. That's the kicker. No unanimity of intent.

I will also point out that your appear ignorant of how American and NATO security policy are crafted and put into play. The structure and decision apparatus requires and has a full spectrum of capability, from advisory, foreign assistance, Non Combatant Evacuation, presence, threat, or significant armed intervention as capabilites available. Scalable, and the US has a scalable security posture that is the envy of the entire world. We can use as light or as heavy an approach as the policy makers desire and a situation warrants. You seem to be focusing on the overwhelming threat of the nukes, whose proliferation is indeed a risk, while ignoring the graduated response we make to every security situation we run across. Embargo and Southern Watch were a graduated response. UN sanctions are part of a graduated response. How far will someone call someone else's bluff? Ask anyone in Poland, 1939, about bluffing, which the French and Brits did.

My comment to Minionman in re the arms race being driven by cost was based on what happened post WW II, since nukes were dollar for dollar the best bang for the buck when destroying things was the object. That is hardly the aim under current security policy. What is true is that anyone wants an edge. A nuke is an edge, or so some folks just getting them may perceive.

Knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss. Don't get too happy, you may be staring through a soda straw, and it may poke you in the eye.

Occhi

[Boo-Boo]

:o I wish we had more choices one the incumbent fighting a war for vengance for a wrong done to his father and the other who cant figure out what side hes supposed to be on today. Where is ross poroit when we need him oh counting his millions :lol:

[Jester]

"Kerry is doing his best to abdicate his responsibility of his votes. I'll wait until the debates to see if he gets away with it."

Debates will solve nothing. Even if there is a person patient, tolerant and intelligent enough to bring the entire record to light (from either side), it couldn't possibly happen in the sound-byte world of a debate. Time constraints alone prevent any meaningful truth from being revealed.

For instance, this article...

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252

... and that website generally have good reviews of the various attacks, and what might constitute a sane and sensible defense. However, if Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) were to go to that amount of detail in a debate, he would immediately be cast as a spineless, hair-splitting flip-flopper. He can't afford that, and so he won't say it.

But John Kerry doesn't need to defend himself as such. His actual record is perfectly available for debate, and it appears he is actually a fairly complicated person with views that have changed several times in his life. But, then, according to the zeitgeist, that makes him weak and foolish.

Jester

Edit: It seems the main page is largely pro-democrat at this point. It's been fairly even throughout, check the archives for more detail. I don't mean to link to partisan material.

[Jester]

"What is an easier problem to solve, Jester, a two variable problem, a five variable problem, or a 25 variable problem?"

"Your line seems to be that a treaty would be equal protection, and of course cheaper, however treaties are breachable, as any contract is, and then where are you?"

"You have to deal with both, not either-or."

"Risk: how much can you stomach?"

There is no ability to manage this risk. It can't be done, except perhaps in the very short term, and even then, it's not likely. You *are* vulnerable. No treaty, no missile shield, no homeland defense, is ever going to afford more than a token security against nuclear attack. Treaties are better than Star Wars, I'm fairly sure, not because they're perfect, but because they deal with a different aspect of the problem. Still, they're no shield at all against an enemy who wants to nuke you; I'm pretty sure this is a permanent condition, unless you can build a nuke-proof human being, living in a nuke-proof city. You don't have to deal with just "both". You have to deal with *all*, every last potential mode of attack. That's not just difficult, that's impossible. The risk is permanent, the problem is unsolveable. There is no question "how much can you stomach?", except as an empty, philosophical question. The questions are "how much risk exists, and how much will exist?", and the answers are "too much, and much more". Two variables or a thousand, you can't solve any of these problems, or at least they are becoming unsolveable very quickly.

I have no objection to a fully scaleable defensive posture. (Your attack posture, that's another matter.) The value of that is large, but the money required to pull it off is not infinite. One does not have to believe in constant increases in armaments to support an effective military. This is especially true once you reach the level of major power combat, since it is basically impossible to avoid nuclear conflict in a situation where both sides are using strategic bombing as part of a near-total war. So, you don't need power to scale beyond a certain point, in the nuclear range. Once nukes are more or less essential for one side to win the war, conventional forces become obsolete. Otherwise, why have a war at all, if you know you're going to be forced into nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Russkies? (Granted, I would ask that question about *any* war, but...)

What is needed is a flexible and effective military, able to deal with real threats in the real world. But it's pointless not to acknowledge the severe restrictions on the value of conventional force in an increasingly nuclear-armed world. Tanks are great if you know your opponent hasn't got the ability to liquify them at will. And there remain many such potential opponents, although (unless one buys into the Bush doctrine, which I very much don't) I can't see why very many of them would choose to threaten the US (actually threaten, not just the crap spouted by the Bush administration).

The role of conventional forces has changed utterly since the time of Bismarck and the Kaisers, although it remains remarkably similar to the British Empire: maintain the ability to prevent any major power from attacking you (in their case, the navy, in your case, nuclear weapons), and maintain the power to dominate insolent countries who step out of line. The difference here is that neither any amount of nuclear weapons, nor any conventional force will allow the "Kaiser" to defeat you.

Jester

[Jester]

"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."

"Yeah that's been tried before. You think we should try a third time for World War 3? And your "all of the world's militaries combined" is cute but doesn't take into account the % of GDP in which it's just average. We just have more money to actually spend."

These are the statements you made, yes?

They are false, yes? They are contradicted by other statements you have made, which you have now asked me to consider, so clearly they must be.

Your original argument was in counter to the notion that the US spends too much money on its military. You said it was a low figure *in proportion to GDP*. That is a precise figure. You weren't talking about "value" as vaguely defined. You weren't talking about the US' strategic situation, or its power vis-a-vis its opponents. All you said was that spending as a portion of GDP was not high, and that this justifies further spending (or counters arguments against spending so much).

You further went on to make two qualifications to your statement, both of which I take issue with. First, is that GDP was not roughly correlated, but that it was precisely correlated. I would disagree even with the weaker version, but the strong version is simply absurd. Clearly, you knew that, because you've contradicted it since. Second, you made clear your point was obvious from thousands of years of history. Invoking that kind of authority, to me, means you're pretty friggin' sure of your point.

So, yeah. I read the earlier posts. You were defending spending relative to productivity. I said spending should be relative to threat (accepting Occhi's criticism that this might not be just a direct or immediate threat). Now, what are you saying to that? Do you still accept your original argument that a "low" (relative to China and North Korea...) defense budget relative to GDP is a good reason not to cut back on military spending? Or does one actually need to consider what one's enemies are spending, not merely what percentage of their budgets go towards the army? I wouldn't, for instance, be very threatened by Andorra, even if they spend 100% of their GDP on the army. I would, however, be quite threatened by the US, even if they only spent half a percent of their GDP.

The way I see it, you've contradicted yourself. I think it's because those statements above reach much farther, and are far more precise than you intended. Unfortunately, they were also the justification for your earlier argument. So I'm not even sure which you mean. That's what I'm arguing about.

I pick apart individual phrases because I presume you mean them. Is that a presumption I should stop making?

Jester