Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
108 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Alez from romania
Have you forgotten the economy here affects the entire world?
How could I forget? You just threw the world into an economic crisis.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:04 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
I do not understand why at the same time they are perfectly happy to pay so much for their military. The military does not improve the quality of their living one bit, I would think.
The military-industrial complex has taken on a life of its own. It's like a massive wave that comes crashing down: it's almost impossible to stop.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:31 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
The military-industrial complex has taken on a life of its own. It's like a massive wave that comes crashing down: it's almost impossible to stop.
US taxpayers can, but they seem happy with this. I guess it is a macho thing: the desire to be the strongest no matter the cost. I could understand that during the cold war, but not now: there are actually no challengers.
It is like the race to the moon in the late 60's, when the US invested billions in getting to the moon first only to find out later that the alledged competitors had not participated at all.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:05 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Gotta remember that politicians convince the masses that war is a good thing, and the media often play along.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:19 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
It is like the race to the moon in the late 60's, when the US invested billions in getting to the moon first only to find out later that the alledged competitors had not participated at all.
LOL if that were true then the americans would really suck some donkey dick
sadly the Soviets tried to get to the moon, but one of their massive space ships exploded, and they just gave up after that.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:16 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
sadly the Soviets tried to get to the moon, but one of their massive space ships exploded, and they just gave up after that.
I thought that was still a secret. So everyone knows now that the Klingons blew up the Russian space ship at the request of the Americans? IIRC the Americans paid them in bloodwine (that's why you cannot get any on earth any more; the US bought it all for this purpose) and promised not to interfere when the Klingons would invade the Andromeda Nebula.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:24 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Suislide wrote:
You are wrong on the military part, there have been an absolutely enormous amounts of technology that were developed through the military which have GREATLY affected civilian life and advanced it.
Let's pick a small invention by the military for starters.....The Internet
The big one I get thrown my way is plastic. But you have to understand that these are spin offs of the military. So Chomsky was talking about how all the passengers planes are really adaptations of military planes. But it would be more productive if the research was geared towards civillian uses.
It's like saying that the Manhattan project was good b/c it lead to [relatively] clean nuclear energy. But, of course, to make that conclusion, you have to overlook the 40,000+ nukes America has created. And like I said before, every nuke that's made is a waste since it [thankfully] never used.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:28 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
So the justification for investing billions in the military is the hope that it may have positive effects on civilian life, as a spin-off or side effect I assume? That does not seem like a solid investment plan to me. It would seem wiser to invest directly in those effects on civilian life then. I might add that this huge government involvement in these investments does not seem very American to me in the first place.
Dude I love you. You're a genius
Point 1 (the hope that it may have positive effects) is one of the reasons Japan is so much more efficient b/c they have a game plan from A to Z, whereas America, and England as I can see, just invests billions in research (via universities) and hope that it will lead to some form of profit.
Point 2 (government involvement in these investments does not seem very American): it's hypocritical when these neo cons pretend to be conservative (minimal government intervention in the economy), and doubly hypocritical when they enforce laisez fair capitalism ont he third world.
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:36 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Suislide wrote:
You said the military does not improve the quality of life and it does so HUGELY.
Berzerker, for future reference choose your words very carefully, otherwise you'll find yourself arguing semantics.
Suislide wrote:
[defense] is one of the government's main jobs stated in the constitution.
I believe you mean the preamble
Preamble wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution doesn't call for a standing peace time army, and the idea was completely alien to pre WWII America.
Suislide wrote:
Second, the USA is currently the worlds only superpower in existence, and superpowers always have a very large military to retain their status.
Oh come on man, are u actually saying that retaining ones status is a legitimate reason to push an entire population into slavery as they finance a massive military machine?
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:18 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
puk wrote:
Suislide wrote:
You said the military does not improve the quality of life and it does so HUGELY.
Berzerker, for future reference choose your words very carefully, otherwise you'll find yourself arguing semantics.
Suislide wrote:
[defense] is one of the government's main jobs stated in the constitution.
I believe you mean the preamble
Preamble wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution doesn't call for a standing peace time army, and the idea was completely alien to pre WWII America.
Suislide wrote:
Second, the USA is currently the worlds only superpower in existence, and superpowers always have a very large military to retain their status.
Oh come on man, are u actually saying that retaining ones status is a legitimate reason to push an entire population into slavery as they finance a massive military machine?
Retaining one's status as a incredibly economic and political power? Yes, most countries would want to. Not to mention, the rest of your question is loaded bullshit and unanswerable in any fashion that is reasonable. No one is being pushed into slavery so maybe phrase some questions that are NOT retarded please.
You are cleary retarded if you think I am referring to the Preamble and not oh uh such small little sections as Article 1 Section 8. Don't post unless you know what the hell you are talking about, at least Berzerker knows what he is talking about even if I disagree with him.
Retaining one's status as a incredibly economic and political power? Yes, most countries would want to.
Yes that's the clinton doctrine (America will invade other countries to protect it's commercial interests). That doesn't make it right. That's like a bully saying I need to retain my dominant position, therefore, I have a right to knock people around.
Suislide wrote:
Not to mention, the rest of your question is loaded bullshit and unanswerable in any fashion that is reasonable. No one is being pushed into slavery so maybe phrase some questions that are NOT retarded please.
Slavery is a situation where you cede your decision making to a higher power. Since Americans are overwhelmingly funding a military machine which they have no control over, they are being pushed into a state of slavery.
Suislide wrote:
You are cleary retarded if you think I am referring to the Preamble and not oh uh such small little sections as Article 1 Section 8. Don't post unless you know what the hell you are talking about, at least Berzerker knows what he is talking about even if I disagree with him.
I'd like you to explain to me where in section 8 it states that the government is supposed to use its power to create a massive peactime standing army.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:06 am
Kasrkin
Troll
Joined: Feb 25, 2007
Posts: 193
Suislide wrote:
Retaining one's status as a incredibly economic and political power? Yes, most countries would want to. Not to mention, the rest of your question is loaded bullshit and unanswerable in any fashion that is reasonable. No one is being pushed into slavery so maybe phrase some questions that are NOT retarded please.
You are cleary retarded if you think I am referring to the Preamble and not oh uh such small little sections as Article 1 Section 8. Don't post unless you know what the hell you are talking about, at least Berzerker knows what he is talking about even if I disagree with him.
Retaining one's status as a incredibly economic and political power? Yes, most countries would want to.
Yes that's the clinton doctrine (America will invade other countries to protect it's commercial interests). That doesn't make it right. That's like a bully saying I need to retain my dominant position, therefore, I have a right to knock people around.
Suislide wrote:
Not to mention, the rest of your question is loaded bullshit and unanswerable in any fashion that is reasonable. No one is being pushed into slavery so maybe phrase some questions that are NOT retarded please.
Slavery is a situation where you cede your decision making to a higher power. Since Americans are overwhelmingly funding a military machine which they have no control over, they are being pushed into a state of slavery.
Suislide wrote:
You are cleary retarded if you think I am referring to the Preamble and not oh uh such small little sections as Article 1 Section 8. Don't post unless you know what the hell you are talking about, at least Berzerker knows what he is talking about even if I disagree with him.
I'd like you to explain to me where in section 8 it states that the government is supposed to use its power to create a massive peactime standing army.
That isn't what Slavery is at all. Ready for a real definition that isn't just made up by you to suit your point. Slavery is a "form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others". Read Article 1 Section 8....it clearly states it...not to mention, having a standing army is necessary. Let's propose the country has no standing army and starts to be invaded, only then the country is supposed to raise the army, organize ranks, build equipment, distribute equipment, train, build facilities, etc etc etc? NO, you know why? Because that's fucking stupid and by the time you do that, you are dead.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:53 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Suislide wrote:
having a standing army is necessary. Let's propose the country has no standing army and starts to be invaded, only then the country is supposed to raise the army, organize ranks, build equipment, distribute equipment, train, build facilities, etc etc etc? NO, you know why? Because that's fucking stupid and by the time you do that, you are dead.
Who could invade the US then? There is simply no enemy who is able to do this or might plan this. Yes, this does not mean that such an enemy would never come up, but it would seem silly to maintain a incredibly expensive military force for decades solely because an enemy might show up one day. If you do, then you have this military force all the time begging to be put in use.
If such an enemy were to emerge one day, then there would be plenty of time to build a defense force. Germany built a formidable army basically from scratch in the period of 1933 - 1939. Given the fact that the resources of the US are way bigger than those of Germany back then, the US could achieve the same in probably a shorter period of time. This is not hard for a dedicated nation at all.
BTW the set-up of the US military now seems to be aimed at fighting conflicts abroad, rather than fighting invasion forces.
A problem with the huge military budget of the US is that it invites other countries to invest in their military too. I do not think the world needs weapons races. The US could show the world that you can be a super power solely on the basis of economic power. That would be a first in history I guess, and a signal to the other countries that you do not need to invest billions in military to become powerful.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
No peace whilst the Zionists pull the strings.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:15 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
berzerker wrote:
Suislide wrote:
having a standing army is necessary. Let's propose the country has no standing army and starts to be invaded, only then the country is supposed to raise the army, organize ranks, build equipment, distribute equipment, train, build facilities, etc etc etc? NO, you know why? Because that's fucking stupid and by the time you do that, you are dead.
Who could invade the US then? There is simply no enemy who is able to do this or might plan this. Yes, this does not mean that such an enemy would never come up, but it would seem silly to maintain a incredibly expensive military force for decades solely because an enemy might show up one day. If you do, then you have this military force all the time begging to be put in use.
If such an enemy were to emerge one day, then there would be plenty of time to build a defense force. Germany built a formidable army basically from scratch in the period of 1933 - 1939. Given the fact that the resources of the US are way bigger than those of Germany back then, the US could achieve the same in probably a shorter period of time. This is not hard for a dedicated nation at all.
BTW the set-up of the US military now seems to be aimed at fighting conflicts abroad, rather than fighting invasion forces.
A problem with the huge military budget of the US is that it invites other countries to invest in their military too. I do not think the world needs weapons races. The US could show the world that you can be a super power solely on the basis of economic power. That would be a first in history I guess, and a signal to the other countries that you do not need to invest billions in military to become powerful.
We are almost arguing two different things here. Do you still advocate a military during peace time, just a much reduced force than what we currently have? Because puk was arguing to not have an army at all during peace time which is ludicrous (aka, the best rapper in existence?).
As for time to build a force if an enemy emerges, that is not true in the slightest. The enemy may emerge at any time and strike before you realize they were even an enemy. 6 Years is a long time to build up a military and if you are being attacked, you don't have 6 years time. Not to mention, the military supplies, weapons, etc back then were much less complicated than what is being built now. It is quicker to build a panzer than a M1 Abram, so you cannot directly compare. Now I agree, there are a greater amount of resources here but again, the technology is much more complex and costly. A F22 cost over 200 million to build!
As for no one being able to invade the US, yeah currently that would be near impossible not only due to the military strength but the amount of weapons in the circulation of population would make it disastrous for absolutely anyone. Of course everyone knows the quote, which I think was falsely attributed to Admiral Yamamoto, in that you cannot invade mainland US because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Anyways, the US military as is currently set up is able to fight invasion or abroad.
I wouldn't say it invites others to invest in their military as well. Obviously our huge military budget is a remnant left over from the Cold War in which we were obviously in the middle of an arms race with another country. If you observe the military budgets for other countries, they are completely tiny compared to what the US spends. There is no evidence that our spending has caused other countries to increase there spending as well and if it has the scale is on such a small one it barely matters.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:17 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Suislide wrote:
Do you still advocate a military during peace time, just a much reduced force than what we currently have?
Having *some* military force seems reasonable; almost all countries have always had some military. You would need this for domestic purposes anyway I guess. The size of a military force seems dependent on 1. the size / wealth of the country 2. the threats it faces. So a country like Israel will have a large military because it is threatened and the US will have a large military because it is a wealthy country. I am just saying the current size of US military expenses is excessive in comparison to other countries.
Quote:
As for time to build a force if an enemy emerges, that is not true in the slightest. The enemy may emerge at any time and strike before you realize they were even an enemy.
Only if your intelligence is completely off. The enemy would need at least as much time to build their military too, I would think.
Quote:
Of course everyone knows the quote, which I think was falsely attributed to Admiral Yamamoto, in that you cannot invade mainland US because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
I am not sure this will be of much help against a ruthless enemy. I think a Stalin-alike opponent would simply obligerate a few cities resisting him and give the citizens of the other cities the choice to either hand in their guns or face the same fate. Guns don't do much damage to tanks anyway.
Quote:
There is no evidence that our spending has caused other countries to increase there spending as well and if it has the scale is on such a small one it barely matters.
Recent history does not support my case, that's correct. I was thinking about emerging powers like China. They are increasing their military expense. They could be expected to do so (increased military spending could follow from increased wealth), but I am not sure they would be doing that to this extent if the US had a much smaller army. The prevailing notion now is that you cannot be a super power without a super army, so countries that aspire to be a super power will invest heavily in their military. That's a waste and makes the world much less safe. But I admit this is speculative.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:08 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Maybe I got my facts wrong: it says here that the military expenses of China are 4.3% of GDP which is even higher than the 4.06% of the US.
Statistics lie, both countries are not really open about there military anyway, and to top it off the source does not seem really objective. Still this is not what I had expected.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 7:09 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
It's better if you look at either the real value, or the percentage of budget. Otherwise Oman is listed as the number one spender as percent of GDP
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 7 of 10Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
