"This is interesting. To say the least." ---Toast
"Sadly, I'm not surprised. I went to the UN once, and they have a graph up somewhere where it shows how much money they'd need to solve or at least nearly solve many of the world's problems. The total cost is less than the total military expenditures of every country in the world." ---Regina
"Either way, I can't see why there's such a need for that much money being directed towards the military. The only plausible threat would be terrorists (which is plausible), but since when do you fight terrorists with, say, stealth bombers?" ---Toast
You, too, can have your very own topic, simply by making a political statement. Congrats, y'all. ;)
Anyway. I've a few points to make, regarding both the United States military budget and the United Nations as an effective entity. We'll start with the UN.
Whatever the UN may or may not need for it's budget, it ought to be noted that in many, many areas, they've fallen flat on their faces, budgetary and otherwise. I note the Iraqi chairmanship of their little WMD council thing (this just before the war), and a slightly older Sudanese chair of the one on human rights. You will be reminded that Sudan is like the only place in the world where slavery is still legal. Contrast that with what the UN believes are essential human rights (and there many of them - freedom is most certainly one), and ask yourself: With that kind of record, do I REALLY want these people to have my money? Throw in the French, throw in a certain leery feeling towards international courts that contradict the American judicial system, and a couple other things, and you've got in a nutshell why a whole bunch of Americans dislike the UN.
Which isn't to say it's not a good idea, but the implementation has become highly flawed.
That having been said, I will note that even the United Nations has not been able to escape from the necessity of having an armed military force. So far as I know, no country on the planet has escaped from it, with the possible exception of, say, Monaco.
Further note that a modern military is a very expensive thing. Aircraft carriers do not come cheap. Neither do jet aircraft, smart bombs, or M1 tanks. Further note that much of the reason for that expense is to make the weapons safer weapons, as paradoxical as that might sound. Smart bombs and cruise missiles come at a certain inflated price. Stealth bombers, which are harder to detect, thus resulting in a lower pilot casualty rate (a thing I am much in favor of), also bear a certain price. There's a tad more complexity than that, but that's the basics of it.
But, you say, the US military is so LARGE! How can we possibly need that many troops?
Very easily, actually. Consider for a moment that the US has non-trivial numbers of troops all over the planet (much of Europe, Korea, Japan, Iraq, others). Also consider that a very big chunk of the planet relies on the US military to protect it from various things, up to and including the United Nations, who we were involved with in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia, to name a few. Our presence in Korea stems from a UN mandate 50 years ago. Hell, our presence in Iraq is UN mandated from 1991 or so. America has responsibilities to a good number of international organizations, the UN and NATO among them, which require military presence.
That having been said, we're still a bit thin. The Iraq occupation is an enormous logistical problem, to the point where it's eating a whole lot of National Guard troops, the Army is desperate for manpower, and a Marine friend of mine who's already been there once is afraid he'll have to go back again.
I can't say I'm overly pleased about the military budget either, but I see why it is the way it is, and I'm fine with that.
[edit] I seem to have forgotten a bit of Toast's comments. What constitutes a threat. The terrorists are not the only one to be had. We just had, for instance, a very nice shooting war with Iraq in which our heavy equipment came in very handy. All those stealth bombers and such. It's been a few years, but when we took down Milosivic, we needed all of it, too. In fact, we lost a stealth fighter in the doing.
Too, there's a pretty non-zero chance we'll become involved in a shooting war with, say, North Korea at some point. They, certainly, warrent the use of stealth bombers and tanks and such. Iran is a much less plausible sort of threat, but they're there, too. India, Pakistan, Russia, China all have decent militaries we may end up fighting at some point. Etc, etc. [/edit]
Posted by Dwip at January 21, 2004 6:33 PM"You, too, can have your very own topic, simply by making a political statement. Congrats, y'all. ;)" Dwip
I think this is my second topic, so I'm starting to learn the ropes :P
While I can also understand the reason for having such a large military, and putting the money into it, that doesn't mean I agree with it. Things like attacking Iraq should be done with a UN mandate--> coalition-->less US forces. Same deal with all the other countries you listed.
The fault is on Bush for screwing up the diplomatic relations. I can also appreciate that the veto part of the UN security council is absolute crap and should be scrapped. Really, it just stinks. Not only in this case, but it goes both ways too (aka when the US vetoes). Vetoing creates problems...
So yeah, I've managed to get off topic in the first reply... OTOH, it's me, so that's not really an accomplishment :P
Hahhahahahahahahahaahhahaha.
Posted by: Whir at January 22, 2004 11:50 AMI don't have a problem with hundreds of billions spent on military. We will recall that Napoleon spent about 2/3 of the imperial budget on his legions at one point. Nothing wrong with that as long as your armies are out and about winning honor and glory for the Patrie.
Posted by: Marechal at January 22, 2004 11:52 AMYeah, I can see why we'd need that much. I was just replying that it didn't surprise me.
You also forgot to mention that orange alerts aren't cheap, either.
Posted by: Regina at January 22, 2004 2:33 PMYes, but then again, you're marechal, so that explains it all :P
Posted by: toasty at January 22, 2004 2:35 PMWhy would we end up fighting India's military, Citizen Marius? I just noticed that remark edited at the end of your rant. Russia, China, the DRNK, sure, sure, but India? The hell we gonna fight India about? Afghanistan? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Oh Lord... I hurt myself ... ouch ...
Posted by: Marechal at January 22, 2004 8:23 PMWell, see, traditionally we've been allies with Pakistan, which has made us the semi-enemies of India. That was more prounced during the cold war, when India was pretty buddy-buddy with Russia and there was a lot of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" political theory floating around, but it still exists to a lesser degree, especially since we relied on Pakistan a lot when we went into Afghanistan.
Now, what with Pakistan and India in talks and all (which interestingly has been getting very little coverage), and Russia in NATO, we probably won't get an America + Pakistan vs. Russia + India world war anytime soon. However, if India and Pakistan ever really do go to war, we're obligated to give Pakistan some degree of support against India. I don't know how much, but we at least owe them $$ if they go to war, after Afghanistan even if you ignore the cold war.
Posted by: Regina at January 23, 2004 1:13 PMThe Iraq thing, of course, is sort of weird. In one sense, we HAD a UN mandate through a whole series of resolutions nobody wanted to back up. In another sense, which happens to involve the French and annoyingly pathetic vetos, we didn't. I happen to be in the first camp. OTOH, I can't help but think if it was, say, Bill Clinton doing the negotiating, we'd have been beating off allies with a stick. *shrug*
The problem with less US forces, of course, is that we're just about the only military in the world that can do what we do like we do it. The logistics behind moving even the 140,000 or whatever we have over there now is a feat so amazing that not only is it some sort of world record, IIRC, we're the only people in the world who have the capability to do it. There are significant amounts of issues which stem from that, of course, which I'm not even going to attempt to answer.
Which doesn't mean I don't think Dubya isn't the Atilla the Hun of the diplomatic scene, but.
And Marechal, in amongst the rediculous N@p0|30N R0x0rz j00! crap, has a point, insamuch as for some enormous span of human history, military budgets were routinely like 75% and up of total spending. Expensive stuff, all of it.
As for the laundry list of countries I tossed out, it wasn't to suggest that we're going to get in a shooting war with India tomorrow. On the other hand, most of the countries I named either have nuclear weapons or are pretty Axis of Evilish. Given the whole Pakistan/India thing, I could remotely see us getting involved over there at some point. Remotely, though, mind you. But I might remind you that the Pentagon drafts war plans to invade Canada, too. It's a nervous world.
And if you don't stop that "bomb it into dust and then leave" theory of warfare you seem to have, I'm going to use this large stick here on you.
Posted by: Dwip at January 23, 2004 1:20 PM*agrees with everything* (that's a first)
Posted by: toasty at January 23, 2004 3:43 PMSince when was I all about bombing things into dust? The only obvious exception would be Afghanistan, which is already dust. And I already went over the whole history of Afghanistan and why it sucks so much and why we shouldn't really give a damn except to occasionally sweep through and clean up the terror camps every 3-5 years. But yeah... otherwise I'm not all about bombing things into dust. Not even France.
N@p0|30N R0x0rz j00!
Posted by: Marechal at January 23, 2004 10:29 PM[quote]Not even France.[/quote] (let me guess, BBtags don't work here?)
You wouldn't want to bomb your idol's country now would you?
Posted by: toasty at January 24, 2004 4:18 AMYou know, I never expected to hear Marechal vindicate Bill Clinton's Iraq policy, but there we have it, I guess. Or something very much like it.
Having already thwacked on you about the lunacy of that particular idea, I think I'll just not anymore.
Posted by: Dwip at January 24, 2004 6:32 PMWhy is the budget so large? It's really really simple: Military is the primary Constitutional duty mandated to our government. So on that sole basis I have absolutely no problem with spending so much money on it. I don't think we spend near enough actually. Always wasting it on handouts and entitlements we are.
Posted by: Samson at January 25, 2004 6:46 AM"I can't help but think if it was, say, Bill Clinton doing the negotiating, we'd have been beating off allies with a stick."
Also can't help but think this statement is an indictment against the biases of the world. Too true it is, much like when Clinton led NATO into Kosovo without UN approval.... amazing how very few people took exception to that yet have such a huge problem with Bush and Iraq.
Posted by: Samson at January 25, 2004 6:48 AM"So on that sole basis I have absolutely no problem with spending so much money on it. I don't think we spend near enough actually. Always wasting it on handouts and entitlements we are." -Samson
But does that really equate to that spending more on the military is necessary? Just cause you don't think it's a good idea to spend on "handouts and entitlements" doesn't mean the military should have more.
Anyway, seeing as I doubt you mean it in that way, but rather that a larger percentage of the budget could go towards the military, I'll also say that it's interesting how the US' military budget is larger than the next 20 countries combined.
But yeah, this post is probably pretty dead by now, so I won't bother typing up a longer reply than this...
Posted by: toasty at January 25, 2004 11:49 AMDamn straight it's constitutionally mandated. To God be the glory. Whereas, medicare, medicaid, TANF, social security, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security, and NASA are not. Not that we should can everything but the military, but we should take a look at our Constitution and then take a look at the communist evils propagated by FDR, LBJ, and now W. We must save the Republic.
Posted by: Marechal at January 25, 2004 6:10 PMAlso can't help but think this statement is an indictment against the biases of the world. Too true it is, much like when Clinton led NATO into Kosovo without UN approval.... amazing how very few people took exception to that yet have such a huge problem with Bush and Iraq.
Was always amused by that, actually. Liberal international bias, I suppose, which makes sense when you consider most of the complaining countries are more "left" than we are. Too, the 2k election left a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Ends up meaning that NOBODY likes Bush. *shrug*
I'm sure Toast could give a better measure of the feelings of Europeans on the matter than I, though.
But does that really equate to that spending more on the military is necessary? Just cause you don't think it's a good idea to spend on "handouts and entitlements" doesn't mean the military should have more.
Anyway, seeing as I doubt you mean it in that way, but rather that a larger percentage of the budget could go towards the military, I'll also say that it's interesting how the US' military budget is larger than the next 20 countries combined.
It's not so much a matter of "screw social programs, let's throw everything at the military!"[1] as it is "This is what we need to keep running at a reasonable level."
I'd also like to point out that our military is doing more work than the next 20 countries combined, likely. Like I was saying earlier.
[1] - Though the issue is sort of murky, given the complexities of military budgeting. It's not to say that the military doesn't go through the odd total budget screwup - I mean, we got the F-111, didn't we? Still.
And as for Marechall, well, I've said this before, I'll say it again. Friends don't friends argue for strict constructionism in regards to the Constitution.
That having been said, you're late for your reprogramming session, Marechal.
Posted by: Dwip at January 26, 2004 7:01 AMYou're only kidding yourself if you think social security and medicare can be construed fromthe phrase "General welfare" in the Constitution. Damn you. Not to mention the evils of massive social programs (Kanada, Europe, CCCP, &c.). Don't make me get out my flag and patriotic lapel pins.
Posted by: Marechal at January 26, 2004 7:39 AM"Was always amused by that, actually. Liberal international bias, I suppose, which makes sense when you consider most of the complaining countries are more "left" than we are. Too, the 2k election left a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Ends up meaning that NOBODY likes Bush. *shrug*"
I don't feel like looking this up right now, but I'm pretty sure that anti-US opinion rose to 10 units after the election. Can't remember from what, but it was a pretty big increase.
Why? Personally, I think it has, atleast partly, to do with the political spectrum of countries. Put it like this; the most right-wing party that is big enough to be heard of, is way further to the left than the democrats (There's a semi-nazi party, but if you just ignore that part of their program, they're more left than the democrats as well).
That Bush then won the elections (with less votes than Gore to boot) did some weird stuff with the opinions. The way he then chose to deal with Iraq didn't exactly help either... Personally, I don't mind a lot of the things he wants to do, but I certainly hate the way he does them. There are of course, a few things which I don't like him doing (Kyoto comes to mind, but that's about it right now).
Anyways, it's late here, so gnight :)
Posted by: toasty at January 26, 2004 2:17 PM