ok
that makes sense

Lol @ Ryan you remind me of the secret diary of Adrian Mole. I know it's true because I learned it at school . . .

Warning: rant

Gnullbegg wrote:

Well of course France only supported the US in their war to weaken Britain's position, and not at all out of some noble democratic sentiment (as was itself still suffering from the rule of an absolute monarch by that time)...

That's pretty hypocrite; when was the last time the US fought a war out of "some noble democratic sentiment"? You pulled a "wir haben es nicht gewuscht" during the Balkan Wars, twiddling your thumbs when you could've made a difference. The official justification was (literally!) America not wanting to be world police..., but as soon as a drop of oil is involved (Liberation of Kuwait, Invasion (near-annexation?) of Iraq) you suddenly do get involved.
Not to mention to War on Drugs which messes up pretty much all of Central and South America because you can't fix your drug problems at home and prefer letting other countries pay the price. Yes, I'm putting the blame for all the victims of drug cartel wars squarely on the USA; without (such a lucrative) market to sell their wares, there'd be no cartel wars.

---

Regarding that whole bit of the USA having the biggest army in the world...? Yeah cute, but it also just so happens to be (by far) the most expensive army in the world. You do of course realise that you didn't win the Cold War; the Soviet Union merely lost it..., when they couldn't afford "fighting" it any more.
Now look at the current US economy; are you sure it wouldn't tremendously benefit from cutting offence (or "defence", per official nomenclature) spending by 90% and using that money in a more productive way? Like it or not, even the US can't keep this up forever.
Don't forget, Europe / the Western World will only stay obedient so long; sooner or later our politicians are going to figure out there's no incentive to roll over every time the USA wants us to -- the current incentive is economical gain; if your economy collapses (even further...) that simply won't apply any more.

so if i am playing you in a game of warlight and i am beating you, you just decided to leave because your bonus is not big enough to fight mine so you get booted. does this mean that i did not win and you just lost?

RvW... you are aware that hundreds of thousands of jobs are made by that 'unproductive' spending, right? And that GPS, the internet and countless other technologies are offshoots of that 'unproductive' spending.

I'm glad you think those jobs and technologies are so trivial but I am sure the people who occupy those jobs or rely on that technology would seriously disagree with you.

well said richard

Ah yes the military-industrial complex - the very thing one of your greatest generals pointed out the dangers of you now trumpet:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Do you recognise the quote?

Not a bit.

But after reading it I don't see how it is contrary to what I stated above. It is concerned with the possibilities of influence peddling, something which most certainly does occur. However, the simple fact that it occurs does not tarnish my point that that military industrial complex is an incredibly important aspect of the country's (and the world's) economy and technology.

Not a bit ... how typical.

I apologize for not having memorized every quote from every historical figure in the history of my country and the world. How foolish of me. I was busy filling my mind with more practical aspects like how to do my job and live my life.

Ska we just have to many important ppl in America that we cant memorize the quotes of all of them

And yet . . . you are so knowledgeable on the military industrial complex? How confusing. That you talk with such authority on the one hand, whilst with the other you proclaim and defend your ignorance.

Yes, because knowing a quote makes you an expert in a field.

I can quote Einstein. Does that make me an expert in relativity?

Sorry, but I deal in the more practical aspects and not just hover along up in the theory. I note that you didn't deny any of my points regarding the jobs and technologies created by the 'military-industrial' complex.

hey i just got a 3 on my AP US history test without reading a single chapter in the history book so i consider myself pretty knowledgable on history stuffs

Really Sharpe, i'd advise you to stop, yes your politicians and fox may tell you things they want you to believe but when you reapeat them - you stoop to their level - and that is not a good one.

But you do insist so I will oblige:

However, the crucial question is not how many jobs are created by spending, for example, $1 billion on the military. Rather, it is whether spending that $1 billion creates more or fewer jobs when compared with spending $1 billion on alternative public purposes, such as education, healthcare and the green economy—or having consumers spend that same amount of money in any way they choose.

In fact, compared with these alternative uses, spending on the military is a poor source of job creation. As we see in the graph below, $1 billion in spending on the military will generate about 11,200 jobs within the US economy. That same $1 billion would create 16,800 jobs through clean energy investments, 17,200 jobs within the healthcare sector or 26,700 jobs through support of education. That is, investments in clean energy, healthcare and education will produce between 50 and 140 percent more jobs than if the same money were spent by the Pentagon. Just giving the money to households to consume as they choose would generate 15,100 jobs, 35 percent more than military spending.



The quote by the way is from General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

A 3 is a mediocre score that doesn't guarantee being able to get any college credits for the test.

Methinks you should have actually cracked the book...

I am aware where the quote is from. I notice you said nothing of the technologies. Somehow I wager you use GPS (DoD owned and operated) and the internet (DARPA)

What, praytell, would you do with the 70K jobs at Raytheon? Or the 120K jobs at Lockheed Martin? Or the 70K jobs at Northrop Grumman? Or the 110K jobs at BAE? Or the 90K jobs at BAE?

Also, what is the source for these figures? Simply providing figures without a source is utterly meaningless.

Richard

RvW... you are aware that hundreds of thousands of jobs are made by that 'unproductive' spending, right? And that GPS, the internet and countless other technologies are offshoots of that 'unproductive' spending.

Okay, replace "unproductive" with "ludicrously inefficient". Those jobs are all fully paid for by the government; that government money could be spent far more efficiently, for instance creating jobs and having something to show for it. Great Depression, the Hoover Dam was built. Insanely expensive project, but it created lots of jobs and afterwards you had achieved something. Currently half of all the aircraft carriers in operation belong to the US Navy, insanely expensive, but it creates lots of jobs... yet a few years later, you're still in the exact same place where you were before; they don't accomplish anything. Sure, maybe you can justify having one, the second is already tricky, the rest is just a waste of money.

Regarding Internet, GPS, etc. How much did it cost NASA to get to orbit (no, not the Moon, just orbit) for the first time? And how much did it cost SpaceX / Virgin? Also, the important part of the Internet is the global infrastructure and the fact everything is hooked up together. Even if DARPA (back then ARPA) helped a bit, they in no way deserve sole, complete credit for the Internet today. Even in the early days, the initiative for installing and connecting networks was in large part a university effort, nowhere near exclusively a military effort. Otherwise, where do you think the ".su" (yes, Soviet Union, still in operation today btw) TLD came from? I'll give you a hint, it was not the US military who pushed for that. You could also Google "kremvax" which (as an April Fools joke in '84) claimed to have hooked up the Kremlin to the "global" network infrastructure:

| months later |
From a reliable source I heard that this, eh... "problem" had been the subject of a serious discussion at the Pentagon about "how to deal with it". Wow! :-)

Doesn't sound like the Pentagon was ("would've been", were it real) very much in charge of it eh?

Really? Comparing the first NASA orbit in the 1960's to SpaceX in the 2000's?

I can't even continue the conversation with hat kind of ridiculous logic.

If anything, the fact that it took private entities DECADES to match what the government did is proof that the government spending on such matters is necessary and valuable.