Detroit City said:
But the US only spends around 4% of GDP on defense, not a huge number.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=2966
What should Gordon Brown do about Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism etc?
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
But the US only spends around 4% of GDP on defense, not a huge number.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=2966
kyser_soze said:
Did you not mean 'if'?
Either way, it is a logical expectation that if you don't harm others they are most unlikely to harm you.
If a nation acts like a terrorist, then don't be surprised if individual terrorists strike back. And of course, the nature of terrorism is that the people terrorists attack innocent people in order to punish the criminal and murderous actions of their leaders.
So in effect, us the normal people become a target caught up in the middle of the fight between state terrorists and people terrorists.
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
mears said:
4% of nothing is still nothing
4% of a very, very large number is still a very large number!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
fela fan said:
No, I mean 'when' - getting out of Iraq is not going to change the Mullahs in Iran and the Islamists who want to see Islam as a world power again, viz this article and this article.
These ideas have FUCK ALL to do with Iraq, they've been around far, far longer, which you and all your deep research in 9/11 should be more than aware of.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Take the hit on face and get out of Iraq; beef up Afghanistan op and spin it as 'redemption'.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
kyser_soze said:
indeed, spin it as pink hippo's called sandra telling him to do it in his dreams if thats what it takes, but Iraq is lost (though i've seen some stuff about the 'surge' cutting sectarian killings in Baghdad by 50% and the last 'surge' brigade has only been in place a month), A'stan however can be won.
he might even be able to spin it as 'unity of purpose and command' and swap the septics in A'stan for the UK force in vietraq.
TAE said:Half a trillion, more or less.
$13,000,000,000,000 * 4% = $520,000,000,000
Exactly, the US economy is so big that 4% of GDP means an overwhelming military. So US military domination is a symptom of a big economy, not one where an enormous piece of the pie is spent on the military.
true, but it doesn't change the fact that the US has more than half the entire world's military power. that's way too much for one nation.mears said:
Detroit City said:
Don't worry our unipolar world will end with the emergence of China, and than its back to a bipolar, or possibly tripolar world with the US, China and India.
Hopefully when it happens all the major powers will compete in the marketplace rather than the arms race.
kyser_soze said:
The trouble with tacticians is that they forget that we're playing around with human lives here. Thousands upon thousands of them.
Beef up afghanistan?? You what? Beef it up? You're fucking lucky those mullahs you talk of aren't smashing you up and your home town and your family and your mates.
How dangerous are these mullahs to us compared to the danger we pose by our criminal war actions?
Now, those articles better be good coz all that bloody rubbish about islamist super-states and stuff... i'll take a read...
Ah, okay, so it's just a mindset of the young radicals, and their teachers have this objective to make the whole world islamic, with justice dealt with accordingly. Our foreign policy has nothing to do with it.
How convenient. How come it's all a reaction to decades of US foreign policy? When did this professed need for an islamist superstate begin kyser?
Now then, when will these islamic radicals start their work on sweden, finland, holland, jamaica, canada, new zealand, burma, senegal, mali, mexico, and so on?
Why are the picking on the US and the UK eh? And Australia? Any ideas kyser? Why are they leaving well alone those countries whose foreign policy is benign?
Incidentally, that first article seemed to me a put-up job. And interestingly you quoted from a british newspaper, where all the propaganda is centered.
And another thought. We british were told that we had to win the second world war or we would all have been speaking german by now. Funny how in germany who lost the war they all continue to speak in german.
And now it's not german we're gonna be speaking, no this time we're all gonna be run by pesky islamists who will impose their laws and justice on us.
Same old story. It's all propaganda from the state. Either you're in on it kyser, or you've been taken in by it.
How convenient. How come it's all a reaction to decades of US foreign policy? When did this professed need for an islamist superstate begin kyser?
Now then, when will these islamic radicals start their work on sweden, finland, holland, jamaica, canada, new zealand, burma, senegal, mali, mexico, and so on?
Why are the picking on the US and the UK eh? And Australia? Any ideas kyser? Why are they leaving well alone those countries whose foreign policy is benign?
Incidentally, that first article seemed to me a put-up job. And interestingly you quoted from a british newspaper, where all the propaganda is centered.
And another thought. We british were told that we had to win the second world war or we would all have been speaking german by now. Funny how in germany who lost the war they all continue to speak in german.
And now it's not german we're gonna be speaking, no this time we're all gonna be run by pesky islamists who will impose their laws and justice on us.
Same old story. It's all propaganda from the state. Either you're in on it kyser, or you've been taken in by it.
Keeping the population in fear benefits only the government...fela fan said:
Detroit City said:
Yes indeed DC. Fear is the diametric opposite of freedom. The more fear, the less freedom.
It's my understanding (not living in my country any more, not for many years) that fear is the main climate underlying life in britain these days. And for a population who are all too experienced in terrorism from the IRA days, i find this rather remarkable.
In those days, both politicians and the people loudly professed that the actions of those irish terrorists would not impact on their lives one bit. They would just carry on with their life as normal, no way would they let the terrorists 'win'.
Nowadays, both the polis and the people have done a 180. I just wonder why sometimes. Obviously the 'muslim' brand of terrorism is more successful than the irish brand...
mainly due to the fact that Islamists look different and practice an alien culture and not to mention they are not christians.fela fan said:
This is the same reason why the US decided to test the atom bombs on the Japanese versus the Germans. Even when the Germans did a lot more damage to the US military than the Japanese.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
What should he do?
Fuck all. There's enough going on already.
Fuck all. There's enough going on already.
We are not comparing like with like here. The GDP is not the amount which the government spends, but the 4% is what the government spends on the military.mears said:
A better question would be: How much money does the government spend all in all, and what proportion of that is spent on the military ?
Similar threads
- Poll
