America's Choice, Our future...

[TarJak]

An interesting and insightful commentary on the US Presidential race:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/americas-choice-our-future/2008/02/07/1202234061869.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[SUBMAN1]

W need to spend more on defense.

More F-22's.

More Virginia's.

More on our space infrastructure.

Why? Because the damn world expects us to defend them lately, and no matter how the US likes it or not, any country that falls victim to violence affects our economy, so it is actually in our best interest to make sure they are stable.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

But when is it defense and when is it offense? The article is right: we seem to use it lately to browbeat anyone who gets in our way.

I disagree with Obama on a lot of domestic issues, but I'm behind him on this very important foreign policy one.

[Onkel Neal]

Good article.


Australia has a keen interest in America's wars. We are the only country in the world that has fought alongside the Americans in every major war of the 20th and 21st centuries. When America goes to war, so, historically, do we.


That emphasizes the importance of allies like Australia and Great Britian, and the consequence of unilateral action without them (http://www.slate.com/id/2183426/entry/2183425/)on our side. America needs to consider her allies' interests.

[TarJak]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Neal. Both sides of this long standing alliance need to ensure that both countries interests are considered prior to acting, particularly when making decisions in relation to incursions into foreign countires.

I think that the same may be said of the UK although perhaps there has been a little more equity in that long standing relationship than the one between Australia and the US.

I think that the relationship will be tested should either McCain or Clinton succeed in their bid to the Presidency. The Rudd government was elected on a platform of withdrawing our troops from Iraq, (whilst maintaing our presence in Afghanistan), and I feel that should further incursions be called for by the US, then Rudd may not be as willing to commit troops as his predecessor.

If Obama gets in I think there will be quite a bit of sync between the two parties as his stance is clearly one of force should be used as a last resort.

Either way there are interesting time ahead for all of us.:hmm:

[Skybird]

Good article.

[Tchocky]

Why? Because the damn world expects us to defend them lately
Really?

[Dowly]

Why? Because the damn world expects us to defend them lately Really?

I second that question. :hmm:

[STEED]

the damn world expects us to defend them lately


So nuke Iran!!!

The press have a saying here. "Print and be damed."

[SUBMAN1]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

I have a great article on that somewhere. I must find it.

-S

[Tchocky]

Do what, exactly?

[STEED]

I got a better idea nuke the EU. :D

[SUBMAN1]

Do what, exactly?Oops! Typing too fast. I do that once in a while. Edited it now.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I got a better idea nuke the EU. :DWhy waste a good nuke on only 12 people? You know how much it costs to make one of those things? SHeeshhh!

-S

[STEED]

I got a better idea nuke the EU. :DWhy waste a good nuke on only 12 people? You know how much it costs to make one of those things? SHeeshhh!

-S

Yea, but you still got to test them. :roll:

[mrbeast]

I got a better idea nuke the EU. :DWhy waste a good nuke on only 12 people? You know how much it costs to make one of those things? SHeeshhh!

-S

Yea, but you still got to test them. :roll:

Well at least you'll find out if that one works. :hmm:

[STEED]

I got a better idea nuke the EU. :DWhy waste a good nuke on only 12 people? You know how much it costs to make one of those things? SHeeshhh!

-S

Yea, but you still got to test them. :roll:

Well at least you'll find out if that one works. :hmm:

I will throw one heck of a party when the EU goes up in smoke. :D

[Kapitan_Phillips]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.
-S

So because Europe doesnt spend as much as it did on weapons, we're unable to defend ourselves? I'll be interested to see this article you promised :hmm:

[goldorak]

I got a better idea nuke the EU. :D

First nuke the USA and then the EU. :p
All problems solved. :rotfl:

[Dowly]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.
-S
So because Europe doesnt spend as much as it did on weapons, we're unable to defend ourselves? I'll be interested to see this article you promised :hmm:

So I am. :hmm:

Here, I have another theory. We Europeans dont need to spend money to our defences, because the US is going around the world spreading their freedom & democracy which costs thousands of lives whereever they go, so if somebody would plan to attack somewhere, I bet the #1 target on their list would be US.

[August]

Here, I have another theory. We Europeans dont need to spend money to our defences, because the US is going around the world spreading their freedom & democracy which costs thousands of lives whereever they go, so if somebody would plan to attack somewhere, I bet the #1 target on their list would be US.

Right! Because the last two major terrorist attacks outside the middle east were in the US... Oh wait.... :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

[STEED]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

[Dowly]

Here, I have another theory. We Europeans dont need to spend money to our defences, because the US is going around the world spreading their freedom & democracy which costs thousands of lives whereever they go, so if somebody would plan to attack somewhere, I bet the #1 target on their list would be US.
Right! Because the last two major terrorist attacks outside the middle east were in the US... Oh wait.... :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Why didnt you include middle east? Arent the hundreds of US soldiers casualties of terrorism too?

[August]

Here, I have another theory. We Europeans dont need to spend money to our defences, because the US is going around the world spreading their freedom & democracy which costs thousands of lives whereever they go, so if somebody would plan to attack somewhere, I bet the #1 target on their list would be US.
Right! Because the last two major terrorist attacks outside the middle east were in the US... Oh wait.... :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
Why didnt you include middle east? Arent the hundreds of US soldiers casualties of terrorism too?

'Cause it isn't germane to a discussion regarding Europes military defense spending?

[mrbeast]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

[STEED]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

Not if we drop them on the EU. :D ;)

[August]

Eh, the bottom line here is that any nation which depends on another nation to defend it from attack is building it's future on shifting sands.

Personally, with the exception of the British, I like to see militarily impotent european nations. It seems to cause less trouble that way...

[mrbeast]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

Not if we drop them on the EU. :D ;)

Did some reading on Wiki and apparently were part of it :yep: , so we'd be bombing ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Member_states

Shades of Catch 22? :hmm:

[mrbeast]

Eh, the bottom line here is that any nation which depends on another nation to defend it from attack is building it's future on shifting sands.

Personally, with the exception of the British, I like to see militarily impotent european nations. It seems to cause less trouble that way...

Actually Britains nucear deterant depends upon the US as, IIRC, Trident relies upon USAF satelites for its targetting data. If the US refused to release this data our nuclear deterant would be pretty useless.

[fatty]

Right! Because the last two major terrorist attacks outside the middle east were in the US... Oh wait.... :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
Why didnt you include middle east? Arent the hundreds of US soldiers casualties of terrorism too?

'Cause it isn't germane to a discussion regarding Europes military defense spending?

But neither, really, are the examples of terror in Europe. Defence spending is not a magical indicator of how likely you are to be attacked by terrorists. I think the fact that the U.S. spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined yet was struck by the worst terror attack in history is proof of that. Defence spending is also not a great indicator because militaries in democratic states are (and should be) often forbidden from exercising enforcement powers in domestic territory, see for example the Posse Comitatus Act.

So then you could try argue that how you use your military is more important than how big it is (giggidy ;)) but really, globalization has given us such a widespread, decentralized, and effective brand of terror. Going after country X to take out terror cell Y is effective in so far that it would destroy some leadership and training elements. But there are 'terrorists' in some form or another in probably 80% of the countries in the world. We cannot invade them all.

Homeland security is a good start to measuring how well fortified a state is against terror, but throwing money at HS does not make it better. The Canadian PSEPC and American DHS are both effective organizations on paper but suffer from bureaucratic bloat and 'stovepiping' i.e. legal and egoistic fences preventing sharing of information. I don't know enough about INTERPOL and Europe's security agencies to comment about how they stack up against the U.S., so maybe someone else can comment.

Even still, there are other indirect approaches like aid and development projects to nip terror in the bud. Didn't the U.N. identify poverty and famine as the top security challenges? A poor and starving person makes a terrific jihadist. The logic follows that if you can alleviate the awful conditions in the world's underdeveloped states, you can keep people in workplaces and away from conflict. I have my personal doubts about this approach and again, I don't know enough about Europe's approaches on development to comment.

So, the point is that defence spending is a poor indicator of how well a state is defended against terror, and there are many other facets you must take into account. And terror is what it's all about, right? No countries are going to invade Europe unless they want to deal with two atomic powers (and a third, if NATO article 5 was invoked). Europe and the EU by themselves are still formidable collective security arrangements; the defence spending of the EU represents 22% of the world. When it comes to traditional vital interests like trade and national resources, you can bet on them to stand up when they are challenged. Unilateral unsanctioned conflicts? Depends a lot more on who's involved, and what the diplomatic weather is like with them.

[AntEater]

Good article, but military spending might be deceptive:
Non western countries certainly get a lot more "bang for the buck" recently.
For example, Russia's defense budget is less than Germany's, yet Russia can deploy intercontinental bombers and a carrier battle group thousands of nautical miles from home while Germany is struggling to send a whopping reinforced company to Afghanistan!
Ok, Germany might have the worst managed military in the west, but generally western countries currently spend huge amounts of money on relatively little value.
I suppose some of it has to do with the fact that research and procurement has been largely privatized (QuinetiQ instead of Royal Aircraft Establishment, for example) and also the fact that except for some small arms manufacturers, all western defense companies are basically monopolists in their countries, often even worldwide.
So you have bunch of beltway bandits and other private companies in sharp competetition to sell merchandise from one manufacturer (Boeing, Lockheed, EADS, whoever) to one customer (the military). You don't have to be a studied economist to figure out who's finally paying the bill for everybody.
Also, national economic policy plays a role. When Germany ordered .50 cal Barrett sniper rifles, it was somehow impossible just to mail a check to Barrett and wait for delivery, they had to be licensed and final assembled by H&K! Because the german army getting a weapon NOT in some way manufactured by H&K seems to be the closest thing to blaspemy, even if all H&K did was take the rifles out of their crates and assemble them....
Russia and China do have monopolists as well, but their military procurement mostly still works along communist lines, it never changed in China, while Russia reinstated the OKB system for the military aviation; meaning serveral competing constructor bureaus (MiG, Sukhoi etc) design planes which will be build at factories that basically have nothing to do with the designer. Only today those manufacturers semiprivate instead of totally state run.


That said, the basic assumption of the text is correct, sometimes it seems to me that the current US admin sees politics as a continuation of war with different means
:rotfl:

[STEED]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

Not if we drop them on the EU. :D ;)

Did some reading on Wiki and apparently were part of it :yep: , so we'd be bombing ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Member_states

Shades of Catch 22? :hmm:

The fecking EU Parliament full of corruption.

[August]

So, the point is that defence spending is a poor indicator

Well it was his analogy... ;)

[mrbeast]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

Not if we drop them on the EU. :D ;)

Did some reading on Wiki and apparently were part of it :yep: , so we'd be bombing ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Member_states

Shades of Catch 22? :hmm:

The fecking EU Parliament full of corruption.

So is ours:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3283100.ece

[STEED]

This is why you have shrinking European defence budgets for example - the Europeans expect America to do it for them.

-S

Not us here in the UK we're spending £10 Trillion on the Trident update. :ping:

Possibly wasting £10 Trillion on a Trident update? :hmm:

Not if we drop them on the EU. :D ;)

Did some reading on Wiki and apparently were part of it :yep: , so we'd be bombing ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Member_states

Shades of Catch 22? :hmm:

The fecking EU Parliament full of corruption.

So is ours:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3283100.ece

Yea but they plan to take over Europe, one law, one flag, one leader and so on. The EU Parliament is only picking up where Adolf Hitler signed off, Hitler tried it by force and failed. The EU Parliament is doing it by paper work via the back door, I know about are lot who are ar*e licking that scum, at this moment giving the EU even more control of our country. We have lost almost 75% on important issues like law and order you only got to see the soft sentences handed out these days. For example a yob commits murder and gets three years for taking someone's life makes me sick to my stomach. :nope:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Still waiting for that article :hmm::rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

Wow. As an American, I never thought of how much power I have over the rest of the world with my vote. :cool: :-j

[TarJak]

Use your power for good then not evil!:lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

Our foreign policy has been screwed up for nearly a hundred years now. We've always had the impression that we need to be involved in the business of others, to act as the world's policeman, which can be a good thing, but it's very hard to create a policy that actually works as intended. Sometimes, it's best not to nose in the business of others, like we did in Korea and Vietnam.

The fecking EU Parliament full of corruption.

Every government in the world has corruption. It has it today, it has had it yesterday, and it will have it tomorrow. That's something you can't change. Since the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia, man has conspired and schemed to disregard the benefit of his country for his own personal gain during his lifetime. They're the ones who have the power, and as long as they're fat, rich, and happy, then as far as they're concerned, there's no problem. When the people demand something, they'll toy with it to make them shut up so they can bathe in their success and power. That's all they desire: POWER.

Take a look around you. One of the hardest lessons in life is learning that people who might appear under the best and most honorable intentions, such as Hitler or Stalin or Lenin, are 99% of the time deceitful in reality. Hitler claimed that he was selfless and only lived to serve Germany. He promised the German people a better Germany when in fact he didn't give a rat's ass about his people, he only cared for power and domination under his reign. Lenin and Stalin promised to remove the Czar's bloody tactics and rebuild a free Russia, when in fact, the exact opposite was the case.

Ron Paul, for instance, promises to abolish the IRS, but that's not going to happen. The government will find another way to tax us. They rack in billions every year off taxes, and they're not going to let them go, not in a thousand years. Every person who is running for president is just saying what the people want to hear. It's no different between any one of them. They're ALL corrupt and they would ALL use you in a second (though you do occasionally get the one that speaks the truth and is in fact selfless, but they never elect them and if they do, they assassinate them).

[Fish]

[ I think the fact that the U.S. spends more on defence than the rest of the world .

Or the arms-industry has more influence in the US government? :hmm: