America can be a superpower or a welfare state, but not both.

[Onkel Neal]

...and being a welfare state is a bad option.


Mr. Gates knows well that America won't balance its budget by squeezing the Pentagon. "If you cut the defense budget by 10%, which would be catastrophic in terms of force structure, that's $55 billion out of a $1.4 trillion deficit," he told the Journal's CEO Council conference last November. "We are not the problem."

So what is? Mr. Gates acknowledged it only in passing this week, but the reality is that the entitlement state is crowding out national defense. Over two decades ago, liberal historian Paul Kennedy claimed that "imperial overstretch" had brought first the Romans, then the British and now Americans down to size. He was wrong then, but what's really happening now is "entitlement overstretch," to quote military analyst Andrew Krepinevich.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074273918974778.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[gimpy117]

so its better to have the power to kill anybody we want at the drop of a hat...but not be able to help our own people. The world has changed, it's not the cold war. it's time we realized that

[the_tyrant]

the loss of superpower status will be catastrophic, it will cause an increased reduction of tax revenue

[Anthony W.]

so its better to have the power to kill anybody we want at the drop of a hat...but not be able to help our own people. The world has changed, it's not the cold war. it's time we realized that

Our military doesn't JUST influence our ability to kill. It gives us more bargaining power diplomatically and majorly affects the economy...

I am getting REALLY sick of pacifists.

Also, there are a lot of nutjobs that are close to getting their hands on nukes. We have more to worry about now than we did in the closing stages of the cold war, and all through the 90's and early 2000's

[gimpy117]

Our military doesn't JUST influence our ability to kill. It gives us more bargaining power diplomatically and majorly affects the economy...

I am getting REALLY sick of pacifists.

Also, there are a lot of nutjobs that are close to getting their hands on nukes. We have more to worry about now than we did in the closing stages of the cold war, and all through the 90's and early 2000's

I'm not a pacifist, you assume much, but I'm not so privy to strong arming the world.

also, Nukes are not something that can be dealt with with armies, If terrorists get a nuke 30,000 men make no more difference than a 5 man team sent to disable them. and, if a country has nukes, they can use them if they really want to. Our huge standing army can just watch.

remember, in the end, how many troops did we need to get bin laden?

a defense department is important to a country, but i feel we have let it become to influential and expensive for it and it's countries own good

[Anthony W.]

I'm not a pacifist, you assume much, but I'm not so privy to strong arming the world.

also, Nukes are not something that can be dealt with with armies, If terrorists get a nuke 30,000 men make no more difference than a 5 man team sent to disable them.

remember, in the end, how many troops did we need to get bin laden?

I was making that pacifist statement generally - didn't mean to come off that way

Nukes can't be dealt with troops, that is true - unless that country only has a few. But they can be dealt with submarines, planes, tanks, ships, missiles, and of course other nukes

And - I'm not so sure the whole Bin Laden thing wasn't made up. Politicians on both sides have faked military victories, put false dates on events that are being declassified, ect, just to win reelection. To me it doesn't matter. I'm only voting for 1 incumbent this next election, and thats at a local level.

[yubba]

What part of we're broke don't you understand front, middle, back. Talked to my folks up north, farmers can't get to the fields, for they are too wet, and the heartland is flooded, so hang on boys and girls things are about to get bad, it's one thing to be a welfare state, it's another when you can't feed or shelter them.:nope:

[nikimcbee]

So Neal, are you running for office?:D:hmmm:

[gimpy117]

What part of we're broke don't you understand front, middle, back. Talked to my folks up north, farmers can't get to the fields, for they are to wet, and the heartland is flooded, so hang on boys and girls things are about to get bad, it's one thing to be a welfare state, it's another when you can't feed or shelter them.:nope:

and that ties into my point, the country needs a budget balancing, but the DoD is the 800 pound Gorilla the GOP isn't willing to even mo much as mention. They say they'll roll back to 2008 levels, which isn't much at all...because we were STILL in 2 wars then.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The military needs to understand the Cold War is over. Looking at platforms being pursued for acquisition, force structures, and places the American military has a large, permanent presence sometimes you would not know it.

That being said, our military should still be strong one. And still can be after massive cuts with its bloated size.

PD

[Aramike]

so its better to have the power to kill anybody we want at the drop of a hat...but not be able to help our own people. The world has changed, it's not the cold war. it's time we realized thatDid it ever occur to you that having the ability to "kill anybody we want at the drop of a hat" creates the ABILITY to help our own people ... all the while preserving our Constitutional freedoms?

Your naivete is astounding. Being a superpower with the ability to project our will and way of life is what gives us the ability to do ... well ... anything.

You believe that the world has changed from the Cold War era. Duh. But Gates is not talking about an arms race - he's referring to maintaining force levels.

The fact of the matter is that we've become a lazy nation. Too many people expect the government to do things for them that they could do themselves. Resistance to Paul Ryan's healthcare proposals is demonstrative of this. Medicare? Takes care of everything - you just fill out the forms (but really you don't, because most providers have staff to do that for you, and indirectly Medicare pays for that as well). Vouchers? Well now - you must do your own research, make your own decisions, etc.

We'll take Medicare, right?

At the end of the day I wonder if we should all merely surrender any freedoms we have left because we are so intent upon doing so anyway. Part of freedom is failure and suffering the consequences thereof. However, preserving the ability to openly engage in this very debate protected by the US Constitution seems worthy of any cost. So if that means we have to balance the budget on the backs of those least WILLING to engage in any semblance of self-sufficiency, so be it.

[Aramike]

The military needs to understand the Cold War is over. Looking at platforms being pursued for acquisition, force structures, and places the American military has a large, permanent presence sometimes you would not know it.

That being said, our military should still be strong one. And still can be after massive cuts with its bloated size.

PDExamples?

I may have agreed with you 10 years ago, but today???

[Skybird]

That is typical American binary thinking again, black-white-painting. Either we are a superprower, or we are a wellfare state. No in between. It is stupid to think like this.

Additional to defence budget, there are the socalled black budgets, that are unofficial and thus hard to count. The industry directly contributes to it, rich family clans with busniess interests, lobbies, etc etc. We talk about money in the high billions here. none of that has any legitimaiton by laws, the constitution, or through the voters.

Dear America, a bit less dramatizing and thinking in most polaristic extremes, and a bit more modesty and moderation! Just a bit less globals claims and demands, and a bit more social fairness and more equalised chnaces for people instead of a split between poor and rich gaping more and more apart. A bit less tax reliefs for the big companies, and just a bit more modest defence budgets.

This would win many hundreds of billions.

BTW, I know the book by Paul Kennedy the article refers to (briulliant book, btw, and very pleasant to read). WSJ claims with great naturalness Kennedy was wrong when preicting the overstretching of the American Emnpire, like happened to the Roman and British empire before. But that claim by the journal is baseless. There is the dollar crisis, there is the debt crisis, and there are two wars in 8 years showing the hightech military of the empire beeing shown its limits in forming capabilities. There is an energy crisis, too. There is a credit crisis, and there is a falling trust into the Greenback, and threats by the rating agencies to reduce America's credibility. There is an erosion of American infrastructure and a 3rd-world-level powergrid. There are states like California that by the middle of the years sail at the brink of bancruptcy and must shut down public services. If all this does not yell "Overstretch!", then I do not know what the word means.

[Dowly]

Our military doesn't JUST influence our ability to kill. It gives us more bargaining power diplomatically and majorly affects the economy...


http://www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com/images/the_godfather_horse_head.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

So Neal, are you running for office?:D:hmmm:
Haha, not me. I would be a fringe candidate that would make Palin look like Einstein and Ghandi rolled into one.

And once they pass amnesty, and 40 millions Mexicans begin voting, we will have out first former-illegal alien president, and that's the end of the USA.


The military needs to understand the Civil War is over.
PD

Fixed :)


That is typical American binary thinking again, black-white-painting. Either we are a superprower, or we are a wellfare state. No in between. It is stupid to think like this.



Lol, so wel'll be a 3rd rate miltary power and a welfare state. The world needs a few more of those.

I understand what you're suggesting, and that's a good route, but sometimes binary thinking fits the bill.

[August]

That is typical American binary thinking again, black-white-painting. Either we are a superprower, or we are a wellfare state. No in between. It is stupid to think like this.

Typical American binary thinking? :DL


.
Germany has just decided to fully pull out of nuclear energy within the next ten years.

What nobody says today is: the Shroeder government before merkel also had ruled that. Then came the CDU to power and opened the deal again, fully trusting into nuclear power. Then came Fzuskushima, and what many people do not understand is that us Germans have suffered much much dearer from Fukushima than those Japanese: we immediatly felt so much Angst that now Merkel opportunistically U-turned again and set course for leaving nuclear energy behind.

Folks who throw stones ought not to live in glass houses! :DL

[Skybird]

Lol, so wel'll be a 3rd rate miltary power and a welfare state. The world needs a few more of those.

I understand what you're suggesting, and that's a good route, but sometimes binary thinking fits the bill.

Neal, last time I checked the numbers your nation spent more on military issues than the world's 15 next biggest military spenders alltogether. ;) Russia and China together would not even make up for just one third of your defence budget!

US black budgets not even counted!

[mookiemookie]

Off topic, yeah...

The WSJ has become nothing but a right wing rag sheet ever since Murdoch took it over. Once upon a time, you'd actually find economic and market news in it. Then the Op Ed section became like watching Fox News. And now, the noise machine has invaded the rest of the paper - the supposed unbiased "news." It's become just another mouthpiece for the propaganda machine who can't even get their facts right in many cases. Those that rely on the WSJ for making investment decisions are putting themselves at risk as the conflation of investment advice and political bias is a bad mix in general and a sure way to lose money.

[Skybird]

Typical American binary thinking? :DL



Folks who throw stones ought not to live in glass houses! :DL

I throw inside and outside the glass house. ;) Regarding stone throwing, I am totally impartial. :D

[Armistead]

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

[Gerald]

Many bases are not in use today in Europe, which on the whole represents a very small cost on the whole.

[Oberon]

Italy was a superpower once, Britain too, as was Egypt, and Iraq. Great powers rise and fall, history shows us this, it's in how you accept this that governs the outcome of the nation. You can either keep holding on until the last minute and collapse in violence and chaos like Rome did, or slowly wind down like others did.

To be honest, I'd be a little less worried about one nation toppling and more worried about society as a whole collapsing, we are perhaps one great big superpower now, the whole planet is linked in a manner that, even fifty years ago (a gnats fingernail in the terms of the history of humanity) would only have been possible in the confines of one country. You can travel from New York to Paris in the same sort of convenience that you could from New York to *looks at US map* Philadelphia. You go back fifty or sixty years and such a trek would have involved a long trip by ship, go back another fifty years and it would have been an even longer trip. The concept of nationstates is fast becoming outdated, divisions are erupting not through race or nationality but through ideals, primarily because on this new world of the internet you can be any nationality or race, but generally you keep to one ideal. However the ticking bomb is resources, oil, water, food, our growing population and longer living society which places the accumulation of resources as a personal goal, well...unless we can pull some pretty nifty tech out of our backsides within the next century...heck probably even half that, well...we're looking at a nasty shock.

It's not governments that need to change...society needs to change.

Just my two cents and topic derailment...I'll call the breakdown gang...

http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/221662948/Breakdown_crane.jpg

[Betonov]

Why would one even want to be a superpower. All the stress, bad publicity, nr.1 target of rouge states. It's not as if the world is a VictoriaII game, where you have to be a great power to influence other states and get first dibs on resources. Anything can be bought anywhere anytime. Slovenia is a tiny nations with as much influence in the geopolitical game than a midget has in a basketball game. But still, we have anything we want, because we can buy it anywhere, anytime.

[Hottentot]

Interesting discussion and Betonov's comment especially reminded me of a good book I read about this recently. So I'm just using this chance to suggest Barry Buzan's "The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century".

[Blood_splat]

We're no longer a superpower... We lost superman. :wah::wah::wah::wah::wah:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Examples?

I may have agreed with you 10 years ago, but today???

Sorry Aramike, not as much as a fleshed/cogent out response as I'd like right now...Calc exam and work tomorrow :(. If you respond I'll try and spend more time on fleshing my post out on Tues/Wed.

The type of "wars" the US military is going to spend 90+% of its time on we are ill prepared for (though, things are in better shape than they were 10 years ago. kind of). What I refer to here is trash wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. Afterwards, if we are so very lucky we don't spend years trying to protect our forces from a hostile native population while rebuilding their infrastructure that took us weeks to destroy. And we cannot count on having land bases near enough to base tacAir out of. And the way we do things now (fighters flying 12+ hour missions to loiter in an area and drop a 500 pound hand grenade if ground forces call for help) is farcical. From both a cost and capability stand point.

The other kind of war is against a "near peer" type opponent. You know, China. Realistically speaking at least. And in that case we will be fighting against an enemy that is as far away as Japan was during WWII, with nukes and the will to use them against our carriers. ~600nm radius F-35s able to hit two aim points (still needing jamming, anti air, tanking support) flying from a 5,000+ man CSG in range of Chinese nuclear tipped ballistic missile systems is not a recipe for success.

Large permanent tactical presences in Europe, Japan, and Korea do not help us, and we certainly can no longer afford it anymore. We have given them 50+ years and a nuclear shield to sort things out, it's time for us to leave. As for these places value as forward basing tactical forces, how long did it take for bombs to start falling on Afghanistan after a madman slaughtered ~3,000 American civilians in a major American city? Almost a month.

The military needs a leaner force structure that focuses more on unmanned tactical air platforms (radius, loiter, cost, quantity superior. and a man doesn't die when it is destroyed.), contested entry from the sea with a leaner surface force (a 5,000+ man CSG is not acceptable, we will lose ships to the Chinese in ~2030) that has more strike platforms on deck that can go further.

The backbone of our tacair (tip of the spear) being manned Cold War spec'd fighter platforms is not sustainable from a cost standpoint, and not preferable when looking at the capabilities it brings to the table either.

Fixed
:)

PD

[Onkel Neal]

Neal, last time I checked the numbers your nation spent more on military issues than the world's 15 next biggest military spenders alltogether. ;) Russia and China together would not even make up for just one third of your defence budget!

US black budgets not even counted!


I know, I know :) And that's more of a reflection on Europe taking a free ride on the US military than anything else. :shifty:

One other thing to keep in mind, Robert Gates is fully plugged into the situation, he know more than we do, and he's smarter than you and me put together. I take his statement pretty seriously.

[Onkel Neal]

Off topic, yeah...

The WSJ has become nothing but a right wing rag sheet ever since Murdoch took it over. Once upon a time, you'd actually find economic and market news in it. Then the Op Ed section became like watching Fox News. And now, the noise machine has invaded the rest of the paper - the supposed unbiased "news." It's become just another mouthpiece for the propaganda machine who can't even get their facts right in many cases. Those that rely on the WSJ for making investment decisions are putting themselves at risk as the conflation of investment advice and political bias is a bad mix in general and a sure way to lose money.


Mookie, I have a feeling anything pro-business is a right wing "rag sheet" to you. Does it matter? They simply posted a piece that supports Gates' position.

[Bakkels]

I know, I know :) And that's more of a reflection on Europe taking a free ride on the US military than anything else. :shifty:


Even if it's a 'free ride', that's certainly no free ride I ever asked for. I don't like the direction it's going.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, I have a feeling anything pro-business is a right wing "rag sheet" to you. Does it matter? They simply posted a piece that supports Gates' position.

Tsk tsk, Neal... I'm hurt. :03: I prefer to keep my financial news and politics separate. Barrons, the Economist, Business Week and Bloomberg are all pretty good at impratiality while delivering financial and economic news.

I fully agree with your statement about Europe taking a free ride on the U.S. military's dime:

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/11/18/saupload_military_country_distribution_2008.png

The problem with Gates and this article is that they ignore a large chunk of the defense budget in their $530 bn number. It's not just the Pentagon's budget. It's the other things scattered across the budget...the $19.3 bn for our nuclear weapons program, $53 bn for the National Intelligence program, $6.6 bn for military aid to other countries (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/real-us-national-security-budget-1-trillion). It's easy to make your case look good when you ignore large swaths of reality.

I stand by my assertion that the WSJ is nothing more than a political rag sheet anymore, and not a serious financial newspaper.

[TorpX]

Neal, last time I checked the numbers your nation spent more on military issues than the world's 15 next biggest military spenders alltogether. ;) Russia and China together would not even make up for just one third of your defence budget!



It makes no sense to compare military strength this way. The US armed services cost more because because people here earn more than those in China and the workers (who make the weapons), earn more. Simply put, everything costs more. I'm sure the US also spends much more on education than these other countries too. Would you consider that extravagent as well?


................................


I really think the military spending is almost beside the point. Even if you zero out the military budget, if entitlements continue their exponential growth, there won't be money for anything else. This is not a rational path for any nation to follow.

[Tchocky]

WSJ has pretty good news coverage. Op-Ed pages are entirely skippable.

I don't think that Europe is getting a free ride security-wise from the US. In terms of optional excursions and sandy oil-related adventures, the US is definitely giving some countries a ride.

[Skybird]

It makes no sense to compare military strength this way. The US armed services cost more because because people here earn more than those in China and the workers (who make the weapons), earn more. Simply put, everything costs more. I'm sure the US also spends much more on education than these other countries too. Would you consider that extravagent as well?

And still a dollar is worth one dollar, not more, not less.
You are mistaken. You seem to talk about the share of the national GDP that gets spend for defence.

No matter what, the American budget is far bigger than America can afford by its own economic and financial power (what'S left of that). If foreign creditors would stop lending money to the US, and all the other services the state needs to pay for cannot be payed anymore, then you see in how far foreign nations are paying for the US military budget. By its own economic power, the US is unable to maintain such a mammoth. Stop lending money to the US and stop buying more and more worthless bonds that they print inflationary, and it immediately breaks down.

All that military and all that American managing at home, is living on tic, and living on making debts, debts and more debts.

All the West played not by the rules, but in God-mode by using an infinite money cheat bypassing the rules for responsible financial management. A game would just be rendered pointless that way, but reality is not so forgiving. It bites back.

[Skybird]

It makes no sense to compare military strength this way. The US armed services cost more because because people here earn more than those in China and the workers (who make the weapons), earn more. Simply put, everything costs more. I'm sure the US also spends much more on education than these other countries too. Would you consider that extravagent as well?

And still a dollar is worth one dollar, not more, not less.
You are mistaken. You seem to talk about the share of the national GDP that gets spend for defence.

No matter what, the American budget is far bigger than America can afford by its own economic and financial power (what'S left of that). If foreign creditors would stop lending money to the US, and all the other services the state needs to pay for cannot be payed anymore, then you see in how far foreign nations are paying for the US military budget. By its own economic power, the US is unable to maintain such a mammoth. Stop lending money to the US and stop buying more and more worthless bonds that they print inflationary, and it immediately breaks down.

Trying to run more military adventures and maintain bigger, more costly militaries than they could afford, was a mistake that almost every major European power in the past 500 years has made - and almost all of them wnet bancrupt over this attempt at one - or more! - points of their history. This is what Kennedy shows exemplarily in the book the WSJ refers to. It is part of the "overstretching". It means not just frontlines so long that they cannot be defended, it also means economic power collapsing under the burden of military costs.

All that military and all that American managing at home, is living on tic, and living on making debts, debts and more debts. Once America does not find anybody anymore willing to lend it money, america is screwed big time.

All the West played not by the rules, but in God-mode by using an infinite money cheat bypassing the rules for responsible financial management. A game would just be rendered pointless that way, but reality is not so forgiving. It bites back. Germany will be scrweed as well. Officially, we have between 1.5 and 1.9 trillion in debts. But if you calculate already set future payment obligations for example in form of pensions versus economic and fincial productivity and add the outcome to the existing debts, then Germany suddenly already has debts in excess of 5 trillion Euros. Not bad. (calculate this against the 2.5 trillion Germany has lost in the past years since the Euro was introduced, like described in the bot-translated text I posted in the other thread - without the Euro, and the losses it caused used for debt service, we would be free of any debts today, easing the pension problem and lowering the interests needed to be payed for credits taken in the near future. It'S often said that in Germany that Germany benefits more form the EU than anyone else. I seriously learned to doubt that in recent years.)

[August]

Even if it's a 'free ride', that's certainly no free ride I ever asked for. I don't like the direction it's going.

Maybe you didn't but when I was there in 1979 a lot of your countrymen were pretty happy to see American soldiers. Now that living memory of the German occupation has faded and the Soviet Boogieman has been vanquished to the dustbin of history suddenly you have no use for us any more?

[nikimcbee]

It's all fun and games until Germany (or Russia:D) starts to get hungry for a piece of it's neighbo(u)r's territory. Then everybody loves us (US and UK). Kinda like the story of the "Little Red Hen".:D

[Bakkels]

Maybe you didn't but when I was there in 1979 a lot of your countrymen were pretty happy to see American soldiers. Now that living memory of the German occupation has faded and the Soviet Boogieman has been vanquished to the dustbin of history suddenly you have no use for us any more?

What do you mean my countrymen? There were American soldiers here in 1979? Have a look at the name of the country under my user name. Than grab a map.

And don't even play the German-occupation card. We're talking about the here and the now. And I don't owe you anything. I have respect for the soldiers that fought here in the Second world War, and I am greatly thankful to them. But I don't suppose you were here during those years? Than please don't take credit for it.
Never confuse individual soldiers with government policy; America intervened here to protect it's own interests. Isolationalism caused most Americans to be against any involvement with the conflict, so don't act as though this was some sort of altruistic selfless act.

This thread is about the here and the now. If I've got to be thankful to you because America helped liberate my country, I guess I have to be pissed off at Skybird because Germany occupied us? Please tell me you agree that's ridiculous.
Don't point to the past if you can't come up with arguments to support policies in the here and now.

[August]

What do you mean my countrymen? There were American soldiers here in 1979? Have a look at the name of the country under my user name. Than grab a map.

I know where you're from Bakkels, so instead of me getting a map why don't you grab a book on manners because your condescension is both rude and misplaced. :nope:

FYI there were indeed American soldiers in Holland in 1979. I know because I was one of them. We're there every year during the Nijmegen marches (unless of course we're now persona non grata).

The stay afforded me plenty of time to socialize with the Dutch people in my role as a uniformed soldier of the US Army. The subject of Dutch-American bonds and debts to each other was pretty much a constant theme during our entire stay there and that was mostly by Dutch doing rather than ours.

In fact judging by just the number of beers that your countrymen were buying us and the kisses and flowers your that your countrywomen continually bestowed upon us just for being American soldiers, not to mention the gusto with which your people cheered us, noticeably louder than other national contingents according to witnesses, as we marched through the city on the last day, i'd say we were quite popular among the local populace. So you'll forgive me if I don't have such an antiseptic view of our national relationship as you seem to.

Than please don't take credit for it.Hey pal I'm not taking credit for anything besides standing my three years of guard duty on the frontiers of the free world, like my father did before me, so that Dutchmen and other free Europeans didn't exchange one brutal occupier for another and yes also so the Red menace stayed contained over there instead of seeing it appear over here too.

Never confuse individual soldiers with government policy; America intervened here to protect it's own interests. Isolationalism caused most Americans to be against any involvement with the conflict, so don't act as though this was some sort of altruistic selfless act.

I'm not acting like it was. That's a strawman you're creating and i'm not going to let you get away with it. Had the Germans not invaded through your country on their way south I have no doubt that Holland would have sat out WW2 like you did WW1 selling weapons to our enemies so you had better drop the isolationist angle right now.

This thread is about the here and the now. If I've got to be thankful to you because America helped liberate my country, I guess I have to be pissed off at Skybird because Germany occupied us?Another strawman. Look do whatever you want, you're going to anyways. Continue to recast us as the hated American imperialists if you want. I for one will be happy to see our forces leave the continent of Europe and I dearly hope that this time it will be for good.

You said, and I quote:

that's certainly no free ride I ever asked forAll I did was point out that maybe you didn't ask for anything but at one time your countrymen we're sure darn glad to see us show up and stick around (at least until 1979). I'm sorry if it irritates your reinvented sense of national pride but that's what I experienced.

[Gerald]

I personally have no doubt that, U.S. will have problems with the economy, and to provide a basis for a country that strives to have balance in what they do, and act, many countries have a historical perspective so much to thank for when it really has been, and that goes for today, let us not forget it, and how much a changing world, there will always be some countries that can be trusted in the long run, and the U.S. is one of these.

[Tribesman]

Isn't it a cycle.
The powerful status and the military service build the need for the welfare state.
Homes fit for heroes, education for service, long term medical coverage, decent pensions....it just spreads.
A decent country should not expect military service without such basic rewards.... but such rewards must also go to those working behind in defence and supply as without whom the military cannot function..... but the people who keep the everyday economy going must also deserve similar rewards as without them neither the supply and defence workers or the military can function.
So your only choice to break the cycle is to start at the begining and get rid of all welfare and screw the vets.
Not a very good choice is it.

[Tribesman]

Had the Germans not invaded through your country on their way south I have no doubt that Holland would have sat out WW2 like you did WW1 selling weapons to our enemies so you had better drop the isolationist angle right now.

Well if the Germans didn't invade in WW2 the Dutch would have eventually entered the war when another country attacked them in December 1941 just like .....:03:
Good point about WW1 though, the great war 1917-1918:yeah:

[Penguin]

Isn't it a cycle.
The powerful status and the military service build the need for the welfare state.
Homes fit for heroes, education for service, long term medical coverage, decent pensions....it just spreads.
A decent country should not expect military service without such basic rewards.... but such rewards must also go to those working behind in defence and supply as without whom the military cannot function..... but the people who keep the everyday economy going must also deserve similar rewards as without them neither the supply and defence workers or the military can function.


Good point!
I always found it odd that folks, who call public health care socialism, are often the same that have no problem with it when it is in the military - the same with pensions and education.
The military often provides a decent education for the people enlisted, most often also usefull in the private job sector. Nonetheless this is a state-sponsored education.


Mr. Gates knows well that America won't balance its budget by squeezing the Pentagon. "If you cut the defense budget by 10%, which would be catastrophic in terms of force structure, that's $55 billion out of a $1.4 trillion deficit," he told the Journal's CEO Council conference last November. "We are not the problem."


This is exactly what everybody says who is potentially endangered of budget cuts. "Oh, it's only a tiny fraction out of (insert gigantic sum of debt here). The same in any sector that receives government money, nobody wants to accept cuts on his own budget...:shifty:

[Skybird]

It's all fun and games until Germany (or Russia:D) starts to get hungry for a piece of it's neighbo(u)r's territory.
I know you're kidding, however: obviously you do not know in what status Germany's military already is, and how much more it is planned to be thinned out. We simply do not have any offensive capacities that would be sufficient to take a country like France or Poland. I would say that France is stronger today, and probably also Poland. I would not take it as granted that we even could take Denmark or Holland and Belgium.

And the shrinking of the German military continues. Analysts in Germany as well as international experts repeatedly got qupoted that already right now Germany can no longer fulfill it's military obligations in the alliance.

In case of a big European land- and airwar (attack on NATO from outside), I would rate Germany as one of the weaker actors in NATO.

Curiosum of the day: the biggest tank army in Europe - is run by debt-drowning Greece.:timeout:

[Betonov]

Curiosum of the day: the biggest tank army in Europe - is run by debt-drowning Greece.:timeout:

Interesting, now why would a country thats all mountains and islands need a tank-force

[Skybird]

Interesting, now why would a country thats all mountains and islands need a tank-force
Turkey.

Much of Greece was once conquered and occupied by the Ottomans. The hostility of the Greeks over Turkey goes back to that time. Turkey's hostility in return goes back to the fact that they had lost Greece again.

[Betonov]

Turkey.

Much of Greece was once conquered and occupied by the Ottomans. The hostility of the Greeks over Turkey goes back to that time. Turkey's hostility in return goes back to the fact that they had lost Greece again.

That much I understand. But a modern equipped infantry squad, trained in hit&run tactics would make short work of a tank unit in that hilly terrain. And those islands, unless all their tanks are amphibius. Those tanks are more likely to be a show of force

[Stealth Hunter]

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

You are well-spoken in highlighting the issues we face lol. What should have been recognized and asked about this whole "World Police" ideology a long time ago is... how the hell can any nation expect to solve the various problems of other nations when it can't even solve its own beforehand?

[mookiemookie]

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

http://us.cdn1.123rf.com/168nwm/vclements/vclements0909/vclements090900014/5522115-a-hammer-about-to-hit-the-nail-on-the-head-on-white.jpg

How many times have our leaders told us the latest military misadventure "isn't about nation building" as we go on to try to build a nation amenable to our interests.

[Oberon]

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. :damn: It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.
However, if the US decided to cut back again on USAFE bases then I'd fully understand and support their decision, it is after all their military.

I do ponder, if perhaps the US, and other nations, need to do a hard reset on their finances, start a new peg system for it, stop any inflation and so forth. It's a tricky situation, and I really don't understand finances enough to be assertive on the subject, but it's not getting any better and whether this is due to a 'welfare state' or high military spending I do not know, but I think that both the US and other nations are fast approaching the point where a drastic measure is called for.

[Onkel Neal]

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. :damn: It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.



The UK & France earned their ride. They stood against the Nazis and Russians when everyone else watched. So I don't mean anything derogatory when I say you "are riding our security coattails", I'm just outlining one of the factors of our extremely high defense budget. Above all else, the US's transition from an isolationist power to a "world policeman" has been one hell of a success in keeping Western powers from re-engaging in world war.

[Jimbuna]

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. :damn: It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.
However, if the US decided to cut back again on USAFE bases then I'd fully understand and support their decision, it is after all their military.

I do ponder, if perhaps the US, and other nations, need to do a hard reset on their finances, start a new peg system for it, stop any inflation and so forth. It's a tricky situation, and I really don't understand finances enough to be assertive on the subject, but it's not getting any better and whether this is due to a 'welfare state' or high military spending I do not know, but I think that both the US and other nations are fast approaching the point where a drastic measure is called for.

Aye that (and in particular the first paragraph) :yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

In a nutshell, war is a business. The defense industry is just that, a industry. Also, the US can not ignore what is transpiring on the other side of the world. These activites can and do directly affect the US physically or monetarily. These cold war bases have changed rolls in so much as the US is really the 'world police.' As some point out, these bases provide an economy for surrounding cities. These bases are forward fueling stops, etc. The US has many international interests for many reasons.

[August]

...the US's transition from an isolationist power to a "world policeman" has been one hell of a success in keeping Western powers from re-engaging in world war.

Darn good point. My only question is whether we can continue to afford doing this.

[Jimbuna]

Darn good point. My only question is whether we can continue to afford doing this.

I suspect...eventually 'NO' but what worries me is who will eventually take over the role.

China?

[Skybird]

That much I understand. But a modern equipped infantry squad, trained in hit&run tactics would make short work of a tank unit in that hilly terrain. And those islands, unless all their tanks are amphibius. Those tanks are more likely to be a show of force
The Greeks definitely are irrational over their armed forces. Calculating the personell strength versus their population size, they operate the - by far - biggest army in Europe, and lastz year they reported to the UN's weapon sregister a tank force of over 1600, half of which are Lepard-1 and Leopard-2.

BUT:

While making deals likwe crazy with the Germans - and owing enormous sums to the German weapon producers, they tried tzo reduce the costs by sparing - ammunition. The 3-4 hundred tanks of the latest models of the Leopard fleet are reported to be toothless, and having no grenades. They cannot shoot with anything! Other parts of their tank fleet is said to be running extremely short on ammunition, or also not having any ammunition at all.

However, the thunder run in Bagdhad and the Israelis' experiences have lead to a different definition of tanks in urban or cluttered environments. To have tanks in that geography of theirs maybe is not as pointless as yoiu think. In defensive positions, hull-down, with the ultra-hard turrets of the latest Leopards and assumed air superiority, such positions could be a showstopper for a Turkish invasion.

But hell, tanks should have a bite, really! :D

Buying tanks without ammo... boy! Tells you a bit on how crazy Greek policy-making is - not just since the currency drama.

P.S. All info on those empty tanks from German, Austrian and Swiss newspapers last year.

[mookiemookie]

I suspect...eventually 'NO' but what worries me is who will eventually take over the role.

China?

If they want to be seen as a legitimate superpower, they're going to have to start acting in that capacity.

[Jimbuna]

If they want to be seen as a legitimate superpower, they're going to have to start acting in that capacity.

Which I jonestly reckon would be the least of their concerns....and that is another point to worry about.

[Jimbuna]

Oh how quaint...mark me up another post!!

[Gerald]

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8048/americanflag.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/americanflag.jpg/)

[Armistead]

The UK & France earned their ride. They stood against the Nazis and Russians when everyone else watched. So I don't mean anything derogatory when I say you "are riding our security coattails", I'm just outlining one of the factors of our extremely high defense budget. Above all else, the US's transition from an isolationist power to a "world policeman" has been one hell of a success in keeping Western powers from re-engaging in world war.

I can hardly see a connection that us being the world police has kept us from engaging in another world war, nor do I see the dynamics of it. If anything it seems we're setting the stage for further conflict and weakening our economic power why the future powers to be gain strength.

We spend over 100 billion is Afganistan every year, yet we can't spend the money to rebuild towns torn up by recent storms. We're going broke rebuilding third world nations that still show us no favor and will go back to as they were when we leave..if we ever leave. The mid east is turning against our placed dictators and probably will go more radical.

[August]

I suspect...eventually 'NO' but what worries me is who will eventually take over the role.

China?


I dunno Jim. I have difficulty imagining China being either willing or even able to take over the role of European peacekeeper.

Heck our shared ancestry aside I don't think even we could have performed that role if it weren't for our massive cold war troop presence in Europe and the various effects it had on the host countries.

[Onkel Neal]

I can hardly see a connection that us being the world police has kept us from engaging in another world war, nor do I see the dynamics of it.


.

How many times over the last 500 years has there been 60 years of peace between the Germans, French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Russians, Italians, Turks....?

[nikimcbee]

How many times over the last 500 years has there been 60 years of peace between the Germans, French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Russians, Italians, Turks....?So out of those countries, which one do you see causing trouble first?

I see Serbia causing some sort of fuss, maybe Russia~Georgia. The Germans have been neutered.

[Onkel Neal]

They said the same thing in 1919 :)

[August]

So out of those countries, which one do you see causing trouble first?

I'd say that would be extremely difficult to calculate as it's not only the protagonists you have to look at but also the machinations of the others.

[Jimbuna]

I dunno Jim. I have difficulty imagining China being either willing or even able to take over the role of European peacekeeper.

Heck our shared ancestry aside I don't think even we could have performed that role if it weren't for our massive cold war troop presence in Europe and the various effects it had on the host countries.

I think your right because I doubt Europe would or could embrace China...too big a cultural change.

How many times over the last 500 years has there been 60 years of peace between the Germans, French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Russians, Italians, Turks....?

If I had to guess, I'd go for Turkey because of the fundamentalist/religious undercurrent in that country.

[Betonov]

Don't worry, if Europeans want to start thrasing eachothers heads again, even the US can't stop us