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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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:

All 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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:

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.