They have NO idea of what they are messing with

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
This is bull$hit racism. Go away.

You noticed that Victor took the SS Nazi deaths head that he was using as an avitar off of his profile a few weeks ago. Guess it gave his true outlook on anyone who was not a "white arian member" away to too many people.

Doubt that he will go away but its a wishful thought at times.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by Joeaksa ...Then we may finally get the OK to nuke Tehran and possibly Mecca. These people understand only one thing, and thats force.

Force has certainly worked well so far - hope you are calmer in the cockpit than you are on the typewriter.

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by Victor

And what do we do in response to this? What - spend 500 million liberating a bunch of sandmonkeys who don't appreciate our good will.

Sandmonkeys? Come one man, I'm not the most PC guy in the world, but thats not needed. Moreover, you would have actually had a point, but the point is lost when you turn it into a racial slur.

[Christien]

Ok, granted I'm not an economist, but why is that the only practical way of looking at it? If you look at spending as a whole vs GDP, the US spent less than 20% of its GDP in 06. In terms of figuring out how the US gov't spends its money, comparing it to gdp is useless. I can see using budget vs. gdp for comparing different nations, but Snowman's original post seemed to indicate the US was spending very little on defense, when in fact the opposite is true.

If we look at defense spending as a portion of total gov't revenue for 06, it's 17% (the gov't ran a $248 billion deficit in 06).

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Force has certainly worked well so far - hope you are calmer in the cockpit than you are on the typewriter.

you're wasting your time with these kind of people....

they are brainwashed Bush supporters, still believing that Iraq is (and was) the front on the "war on terrorism". a country that posed no threat to us and had the most weakened dictatorship on the planet. We certainly must be aggressive against 9/11-type bombers. But at the same time exercise caution.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Lies, damn lies and statistics:



I'll get newer stuff if you want, but, as a percentage of the GDP...you pick your metric.

I'm afraid that the percentage of GDP is a relatively meaningless figure. The percentage of the federal budget is all that matters.

That and the fact that the US government spends more on military in total than the next 26 countries added together.

That means a 90% reduction in military spending including the VA expenditures, which are in fact a cost of the military even though most don't count that, would be about right to defend America.

[JSDSKI]

Well, Joe, I guess our posts passed in the internet fog - thanks for the kind comment, I do appreciate it and I respect your experience and comments - I just don't think force is the way through this craziness.

We weren't attacked by the entire Islamic religion and culture. We were attacked by a tiny, tiny, group - probably 50 or less for the 9/11 attack - maybe, what 10 or 20 thousand of determined angry zealots? No matter how foriegn or strange we find their practices - it is a successful culture that built great empires. The crazies have manipulated local tribal and regional conflicts for their own personal aggrandizement and political and economic power. Power politics is played the same way around the world - everybody, Christian, Muslim, and Jew has their friendly surrogates out in front doing things with "plausible deniability".

We made a terrible tactical blunder by attacking the zealots as if they were a real nation state. It gave them power and propaganda beyond their own ability to create. It gave them even more leverage with the locals and more respect with power centers within legitimate regional governments. It was a strategic mistake to use force in Iraq simply because it acted only as a catalyst for insurgencies. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and carefully and quietly taken down al-Queda there and in Pakistan. Anyway. Time will tell. But I think we need to change the dynamic in the region and that means less force and therefore less catalystic energy inserted into what is fundamentally an internal Islamist argument between Sunni/Shia or religious versus secular cultures.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Christien
Ok, granted I'm not an economist, but why is that the only practical way of looking at it? If you look at spending as a whole vs GDP, the US spent less than 20% of its GDP in 06. In terms of figuring out how the US gov't spends its money, comparing it to gdp is useless. I can see using budget vs. gdp for comparing different nations, but Snowman's original post seemed to indicate the US was spending very little on defense, when in fact the opposite is true.

If we look at defense spending as a portion of total gov't revenue for 06, it's 17% (the gov't ran a $248 billion deficit in 06).

It is not the only practical way...I posted it because apples were being sold as oranges.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Christien
Ok, granted I'm not an economist, but why is that the only practical way of looking at it? If you look at spending as a whole vs GDP, the US spent less than 20% of its GDP in 06. In terms of figuring out how the US gov't spends its money, comparing it to gdp is useless. I can see using budget vs. gdp for comparing different nations, but Snowman's original post seemed to indicate the US was spending very little on defense, when in fact the opposite is true.

If we look at defense spending as a portion of total gov't revenue for 06, it's 17% (the gov't ran a $248 billion deficit in 06).

The only way it makes sense at all is either in dollar figures or relative to the wealth or output of the country. We do spend very little now with respect to what we have spent during other periods or with respect to some other countries based on the relative wealth of our country. It makes no sense to compare it to revenues either...as that is purely a measure of how heavily we are taxed. This is how you normally see it expressed...for good reason.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Christien
Ok, granted I'm not an economist, but why is that the only practical way of looking at it? If you look at spending as a whole vs GDP, the US spent less than 20% of its GDP in 06. In terms of figuring out how the US gov't spends its money, comparing it to gdp is useless. I can see using budget vs. gdp for comparing different nations, but Snowman's original post seemed to indicate the US was spending very little on defense, when in fact the opposite is true.

If we look at defense spending as a portion of total gov't revenue for 06, it's 17% (the gov't ran a $248 billion deficit in 06).

It's a great deal more than 17%. The government doesn't count off budget items, paying for past military adventures, paying for the Veterans Administration, paying interest on student loans, paying student grants, and other expenses. Nearly one half the federal budget is for the military when you look at the big picture.

[lonewolf]

snowman .in the time it took you to write your post the cost of the war went up another 400+thousand

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
The only way it makes sense at all is either in dollar figures or relative to the wealth or output of the country. We do spend very little now with respect to what we have spent during other periods or with respect to some other countries based on the relative wealth of our country. It makes no sense to compare it to revenues either...as that is purely a measure of how heavily we are taxed. This is how you normally see it expressed...for good reason.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
.

Comparing military expenditures to the wealth of the country is only used by those attempting to prove a lie. The true military expenditures should be expressed as a percentage of the federal budget OR in real dollars to compare it to the expenditures of other countries.

Any other expression of military spending is less than worthless.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
That and the fact that the US government spends more on military in total than the next 26 countries added together.

Another meaningless figure. What is North Korea's military expendtitures expressed as a percentage of GDP?

I bet the starving peasants would not think the metric meaningless.

I have expressed in past posts my dismay with duplicative spending in the military budget. In a sane world, I would love to see huge cuts in military spending.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by fastpat
Comparing military expenditures to the wealth of the country is only used by those attempting to prove a lie. The true military expenditures should be expressed as a percentage of the federal budget OR in real dollars to compare it to the expenditures of other countries.

Any other expression of military spending is less than worthless.

You are correct if you are attempting to demonstrate the size of your military, not if you are attempting to demonstrate the relative cost of the military to the taxpayer...as Snowman was.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Another meaningless figure. What is North Korea's military expendtitures expressed as a percentage of GDP?

I bet the starving peasants would not think the metric meaningless.

That there is a military budget in North Korea at all is meaningful. Who would invade them? Other than Bush II?

I have expressed in past posts my dismay with duplicative spending in the military budget. In a sane world, I would love to see huge cuts in military spending.

If it were a sane world, I'd end the military altogether. Ten percent of what is spent now is a good compromise.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
No matter how foriegn or strange we find their practices - it is a successful culture that built great empires.

You are being generous. Can you name anything positive that the Arab-Muslim culture has created in the past 500 years?

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Doubt that he will go away but its a wishful thought at times.

(psst psst Joe, ignore button bro, works wonders, )

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by Rearden
You are being generous. Can you name anything positive that the Arab-Muslim culture has created in the past 500 years?

I know this is a joke, but how about algebra, the number and concept of zero, backgammon, polo, glyphs, and our numbering system. Oh and they did some wild stuff with astronomy. And some crazy stuff in Spain we like to call "Mediterranean architecture and flamenco." Not to mention coffee.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
I know this is a joke, but how about algebra, the number and concept of zero, backgammon, polo, glyphs, and our numbering system. Oh and they did some wild stuff with astronomy. And some crazy stuff in Spain we like to call "Mediterranean architecture and flamenco." Not to mention coffee.

Any of that in the past 500 years?

[JSDSKI]

My bad. It is a completely worthless and useless culture. Oh, wait. I know, OPEC!