+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 206

Thread: China plans double-digit boost in military spending

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiliconMagician View Post
    Have thought to ask the Japanese and Koreans their opinion on these redeployments Shiva?

    You really have tunnel vision if you can't realize that we are just not like other nations who can sit aside and let Asia engage in an arms race.

    Japan is under obligation not to rearm and rebuild a military but they will end up doing so if we abandon them. A Cold War situation between japan and China is unacceptable from a geopolitical/economic point of view.

    We will never return to 1930's isolationism.

    Of course, something tells me you are an economic protectionist as well and would favor the globalized economy collapsing.
    Starting at the bottom and working up I am not an economic protectionist. Why would I be? Personally I don't really care about the "world economy" when it comes at the sacrifice of the US economy. Why should the children of Americans today be supporting the economy of other countries which is what we're asking them to do with deficit spending. What about the economy of our children that we're destroying?

    Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to defend itself against foreign aggression. That includes Japan, Korea and Germany. Why should US taxpayers (and our children) be paying to defend other nations from attack. That is a responsibility of their taxpayers and not US taxpayers.

    If Japan, Germany or N Korea wants to have the US protect them then they should be paying for the cost of our military... all $900 billion a year. They can divide it up and each offer to pay $300 billion and then we might think about it.
    Last edited by Shiva_TD; Mar 06 2012 at 12:46 PM.
    When social conservatives of the Republican Party state they want to return to "traditional American values" this is the "traditional American value" that they support.

    "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men. Andrew Johnson 1866.


  2. Default

    Chinese success can be used against American leftists. China isn't the enemy. American leftists are the direct enemy. Focus on defeating leftists and leave China alone. Death to leftists...figuratively of course.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    If Japan, Germany or N Korea wants to have the US protect them then they should be paying for the cost of our military... all $900 billion a year. They can divide it up and each offer to pay $300 billion and then we might think about it.
    I agree.

    These are three of the strongest economies in the world. There is no reason why South Korea cannot outspend North Korea and be better armed than N. Korea, but with us as their partner they don't need to.

    If we are going to have bases in such places, whoever we are supposed to be defending- if they can afford to pay for it- and these three can- should be paying the bill.
    The problem with marriage is that we heterosexuals are not honoring marriage sufficiently- not with homosexuals wanting to get married.

    Every child a homosexual couples has is a desired child.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
    I agree.

    These are three of the strongest economies in the world. There is no reason why South Korea cannot outspend North Korea and be better armed than N. Korea, but with us as their partner they don't need to.

    If we are going to have bases in such places, whoever we are supposed to be defending- if they can afford to pay for it- and these three can- should be paying the bill.
    America doesn't need bases overseas unless, of course, your intention is to continue to act like a hegemon.

    America should avoid conflict with China directly. China would defeat America.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    America doesn't need bases overseas unless, of course, your intention is to continue to act like a hegemon.

    America should avoid conflict with China directly. China would defeat America.
    Of course the issue is moot as China has no intention of engaging the United States in a war. No nation on the planet wants to engage in a war with the United States and certainly none of them have any plans to attack the United States. The only time US military forces are ever opposed are in countries where the United States military forces shouldn't be in the first place.

    Not a single country has attacked the United States since WW II and there is no justification for any of the wars that the US has been involved in since WW II because no country has attacked us.
    When social conservatives of the Republican Party state they want to return to "traditional American values" this is the "traditional American value" that they support.

    "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men. Andrew Johnson 1866.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    Starting at the bottom and working up I am not an economic protectionist. Why would I be? Personally I don't really care about the "world economy" when it comes at the sacrifice of the US economy. Why should the children of Americans today be supporting the economy of other countries which is what we're asking them to do with deficit spending. What about the economy of our children that we're destroying?

    Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to defend itself against foreign aggression. That includes Japan, Korea and Germany. Why should US taxpayers (and our children) be paying to defend other nations from attack. That is a responsibility of their taxpayers and not US taxpayers.

    If Japan, Germany or N Korea wants to have the US protect them then they should be paying for the cost of our military... all $900 billion a year. They can divide it up and each offer to pay $300 billion and then we might think about it.
    Germany does not need 'USA Protection" it is in part spending billions to fund the European military, which is growing so huge it might over take russia as the number 2 military in the world.

    But why the usa waste resources with germany is a question for the american goverment to answer. When considor Germany in gdp standards does better than america and by itself without EU support is one of the richest nations on earth.
    When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think the sardines will be thrown into the sea.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeneralZod View Post
    Germany does not need 'USA Protection" it is in part spending billions to fund the European military, which is growing so huge it might over take russia as the number 2 military in the world.

    But why the usa waste resources with germany is a question for the american goverment to answer. When considor Germany in gdp standards does better than america and by itself without EU support is one of the richest nations on earth.
    America uses facilities in Germany as part of its international expeditionary capability. America isn't defending Germany.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    America uses facilities in Germany as part of its international expeditionary capability. America isn't defending Germany.
    I worked briefly with an american who spent a large part of his career in germany in the usa bases. In all that time, he never learned german. He coulden't speak a word of the language.

    The usa seems cut off from the average german, so if ever does leave, it won't be missed.
    When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think the sardines will be thrown into the sea.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    America uses facilities in Germany as part of its international expeditionary capability. America isn't defending Germany.
    What "international expeditionary capability" is that referring to? Is it maintianing our ability to conduct wars in foreign countries against nations that have never presented any threat to the United States? Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan never presented any threat of attacking the United States and the United States had no reason to go to war against any of them.

    In need we can deploy the US military to anywhere in the world from the United States at any time. The US Air Force can conduct warfare anywhere in the world today from bases in the United States. The US Navy can go anywhere it chooses from bases in the United States and all base operations are in the United States. The US Army can deploy anywhere in the world from the United States. All of this has been repeatedly demonstrated time and time again.

    The US military should be exclusively used to defend the United States from attack and any nation that chooses to attack the United States has the problem of getting it's military to the United States. We need only defend ourselves and we have the advantage of defending our territory as opposed to going somewhere else to attack another nation's territory.

    As noted this is basically moot though because no nation is going to launch an attack against the territory of the United States today. It simply isn't going to happen and hasn't happened in over 60 years. We need to be prepared and to have a deterant military capable of immediate response but that is all. We can literally do that for 1/4th of today's US military budget.
    When social conservatives of the Republican Party state they want to return to "traditional American values" this is the "traditional American value" that they support.

    "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men. Andrew Johnson 1866.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    What "international expeditionary capability" is that referring to? Is it maintianing our ability to conduct wars in foreign countries against nations that have never presented any threat to the United States? Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan never presented any threat of attacking the United States and the United States had no reason to go to war against any of them.

    In need we can deploy the US military to anywhere in the world from the United States at any time. The US Air Force can conduct warfare anywhere in the world today from bases in the United States. The US Navy can go anywhere it chooses from bases in the United States and all base operations are in the United States. The US Army can deploy anywhere in the world from the United States. All of this has been repeatedly demonstrated time and time again.

    The US military should be exclusively used to defend the United States from attack and any nation that chooses to attack the United States has the problem of getting it's military to the United States. We need only defend ourselves and we have the advantage of defending our territory as opposed to going somewhere else to attack another nation's territory.

    As noted this is basically moot though because no nation is going to launch an attack against the territory of the United States today. It simply isn't going to happen and hasn't happened in over 60 years. We need to be prepared and to have a deterant military capable of immediate response but that is all. We can literally do that for 1/4th of today's US military budget.
    There are US military hospitals in Germany that are used in the global project. They are important to wounded troops. The associated air bases are necessary if global reach is sought.

    Hypersonic weapons based in the continental US are in their infancy. But give them a little time and they will come into their own.

    The US military should come home and deploy along the Mexican border.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Perry jumps to a double digit lead.
    By Consmike in forum Current Events
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: Aug 24 2011, 07:50 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks