U.S. Senate backs massive increase in military spending

[pegman]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Those figures are about "wealth" not income. I suspect that most of this "wealth" comes from home ownership. I could be wrong, of course. Could you post the source of this info?

Yes "wealth" is the value/worth of your assets minus debt including property, stocks, etc.

 

the source is at the top of the link page: "List of countries by wealth per adult
This is a list of countries of the world by wealth per adult, published annually by Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Databook. It includes both financial and non-financial assets."

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, pegman said:

Isn't the Korean War unsettled? 

I was being overly generous in my assessment of the results of that war. Considering that the US, as the major player in the UN forcedid try to militarily conquer the North after it invaded the South and that the US headed force failed at that, I think it's fairest to call it a draw.

[habanero]

On 9/19/2017 at 2:01 PM, Machiavelli said:

700 billion and North Korea with a two dollar nuclear weapon is running circles around you. 

Want the U.S. to stop spending so much on defense?  Have them pull out all their  military personnel and equipment from the UK and Germany. Remove all U.S. forces from the European theater. That will save a few billion right there. After all, the U.S. doesn't allow these countries to have military bases in America.

Edited September 22, 2017 by habanero

[pegman]

11 minutes ago, habanero said:

Want the U.S. to stop spending so much on defense?  Have them pull out all their  military personnel and equipment from the UK and Germany. Remove all U.S. forces from the European theater. That will save a few billion right there. After all, the U.S. doesn't allow these countries to have military bases in America.

I think that would be good but the savings would just go to some other unnecessary military expenditure. 

[Credo]

16 minutes ago, habanero said:

Want the U.S. to stop spending so much on defense?  Have them pull out all their  military personnel and equipment from the UK and Germany. Remove all U.S. forces from the European theater. That will save a few billion right there. After all, the U.S. doesn't allow these countries to have military bases in America.

If those countries want the US military bases out, they can ask.   Again, it is a matter of having defense treaties or agreements with them.   Germany was left largely unable to defend itself after WWII and the UK probably remembers well what happened and the Russian tendency toward expansion.    

 

The Philippines voted to terminate Subic Bay and it happened.   

[habanero]

On 9/19/2017 at 1:49 PM, craigt3365 said:

Always with the anti-US comment.  You're like a broken record.  How about trying to deal with this?

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/bosnia-herzegovina/2017-09-06/russias-bosnia-gambit

 

Sometimes, there are 2 sides to a story.  You should try to look on the other side.  For just once. LOL

I find most people that try to put down the U.S. are doing it out of pure envy....  

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, habanero said:

I find most people that try to put down the U.S. are doing it out of pure envy....  

Yes I am sure it has nothing to do with the way we act around the world, our choice of a president , and excellent social programs. 

[habanero]

39 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yes I am sure it has nothing to do with the way we act around the world, our choice of a president , and excellent social programs. 

Well if you don't know how to behave when out in the world, I'm sorry. I can't help you. As for the rest of us. We will try and make excuses for you. Hope that helps.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, habanero said:

Well if you don't know how to behave when out in the world, I'm sorry. I can't help you. As for the rest of us. We will try and make excuses for you. Hope that helps.

Not to discount my personal importance concerning world affairs.  But i don't think most people around the world are concerned with me individually.

Though I do get a few raise eyebrows  when i wear cargo shorts, and flip flops with black socks 

Why are people so jealous of my incredibly seaxy leggs? 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I was being overly generous in my assessment of the results of that war. Considering that the US, as the major player in the UN forcedid try to militarily conquer the North after it invaded the South and that the US headed force failed at that, I think it's fairest to call it a draw.

It was UN forces that fought in the war.  To not acknowledge their efforts is pretty bad.  The UN forces were 100% successful in their goal.  To retake South Korea.  MacArthur's wanted to take all of North Korea.  He wasn't successful and wasn't 100% supported by his superiors to do that.  It ended in a draw.  After hundreds of thousands lost their lives.  Great job NK.

[inThailand]

700B, just preplanning for WWIII?

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, easton said:

Republicans and Democrats are both bought and paid for by the Military Industrial Complex. 

 

That's an outdated and incorrect comment.  Made by somebody decades ago.  Great for conspiracy theory posts though.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

What victories did the USA have post WW2 that involved building countries? Unless you count the Korean War as a victory, and that was more a case of helping to rebuild South Korea, I can't think of any. 

 

Not sure what you're on about and guess you misunderstood my point - which was that war was a more straightforward proposition in the past. Post-WW2 and onward, quite a whole lot of constraints, norms, expectations and public opinion and media coverage were added to the mix. The concept of "victory" changed as well - no longer enough to simply beat the main opposing military force.

[ilostmypassword]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

War didn't use to involve country building post-victory, war didn't have that many constraints placed on combatants, war was less asymmetrical in the past, there was way less information and public awareness of conditions and events. And war got more expensive to wage.

 

Compare WW2 and the Vietnam War on all these counts, they aren't the same. And the trend just went on.

 

As far as I can tell, war still does't involve "country building post-victory" at least as far as America is concerned. I guess we'll have to weight until America has a victory to find out.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As far as I can tell, war still does't involve "country building post-victory" at least as far as America is concerned. I guess we'll have to weight until America has a victory to find out.

 

As far as I can tell, you're either not paying attention to what's posted and answering to an imaginary post - or picking one of them pointless petty arguments, again. Have a ball.

 

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As far as I can tell, war still does't involve "country building post-victory" at least as far as America is concerned. I guess we'll have to weight until America has a victory to find out.

Seemed to work pretty well in Japan and Germany.  South Korea.  Panama.  Etc.

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I can tell, you're either not paying attention to what's posted and answering to an imaginary post - or picking one of them pointless petty arguments, again. Have a ball.

 

And as far as I can tell, you're just engaging in negative characterization and not engaging with the facts.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

And as far as I can tell, you're just engaging in negative characterization and not engaging with the facts.

 

Nope, just not entering into one of your contrived arguments.

[puck2]

On 19.9.2017 at 1:49 PM, craigt3365 said:

Always with the anti-US comment.  You're like a broken record.  How about trying to deal with this?

<---->

Although I like many of your comments it is disgusting using the „hammer“ when you are not able to differ between criticism and „anti-US comments“. It seems you cannot handle US-criticism, for whatever reason.

 

When the US intervene e.g.in Yemen to support their „lovely “friends" of Saudi Arabia then this costs money, taken from the military budget. The list goes on and on. Result, The USA is meddling in things and events it shouldn't meddle in, as mentioned before.

 

Therefore it would be very, very sane to think about the opposite – how to reduce the „war“-budget in favor for a useful policy, useful for the not so privileged US people and/ or infrastructure. BTW a welcome Trump idea, but at now forgotten. Spending big money for the military budget, forgetting the the miserable situation in the hurricane hit S.states.

 

Especially under the new LOTUS (Liar Of ….) the US want to meddle in affairs – and waste money for them – they should refrain from. The history AFTER WW 2 is full of unlawful US meddling with giant sums of wasted war-budget-money. And this doesn't include losses you cannot measure by money! Deaths, seriously hurt soldiers, damage  in civil war areas cannot be "budgeted".

 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by puck2

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope, just not entering into one of your contrived arguments.

My turn for a coffee break.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, puck2 said:

Although I like many of your comments it is disgusting using the „hammer“ when you are not able to differ between criticism and „anti-US comments“. It seems you cannot handle US-criticism, for whatever reason.

 

When the US intervene e.g.in Yemen to support their „lovely “friends" of Saudi Arabia then this costs money, taken from the military budget. The list goes on and on. Result, The USA is meddling in things and events it shouldn't meddle in, as mentioned before.

 

Therefore it would be very, very sane to think about the opposite – how to reduce the „war“-budget in favor for a useful policy, useful for the not so privileged US people and/ or infrastructure. BTW a welcome Trump idea, but at now forgotten. Spending big money for the military budget, forgetting the the miserable situation in the hurricane hit S.states.

 

Especially under the new LOTUS (Liar Of ….) the US want to meddle in affairs – and waste money for them – they should refrain from. The history AFTER WW 2 is full of unlawful US meddling with giant sums of wasted war-budget-money. And this doesn't include losses you cannot measure by money! Deaths, seriously hurt soldiers, damage  in civil war areas cannot be "budgeted".

 

Therefore it would be very, very sane to think about the opposite – how to reduce the „war“-budget in favor for a useful policy, useful for the not so privileged US people and/ or infrastructure. BTW, investment in infrastructure is a welcome Trump idea, but at now forgotten.

I've never said I supported what's going on in Yemen.  But it's more complicated than just blaming it all on the US.  The main players there are Saudi Arabia and Iran.  SA gets support from a variety of countries as does Iran.  Perhaps you should criticize Russia for their recent big weapons sale to Iran?

 

I'm all for reducing the military budget.  Sadly, it's tough times in the world today.  And sadly, the US no longer has a strong leader.

 

Why focus only on the US?  Again, are you OK with what Russia's doing in other country's affairs?  China? 

 

I'm all for a balanced discussion.  But here on TVF, many just go right after the US.  Blaming everything including their childhood pimples on the US. LOL

[puck2]

@craigt3365

This thread is about US military budget and not about that of Russia or China.

 

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I've never said I supported what's going on in Yemen.  But it's more complicated than just blaming it all on the US.  The main players there are Saudi Arabia and Iran.  SA gets support from a variety of countries as does Iran.  Perhaps you should criticize Russia for their recent big weapons sale to Iran?

 

I'm all for reducing the military budget.  Sadly, it's tough times in the world today.  And sadly, the US no longer has a strong leader.

 

Why focus only on the US?  Again, are you OK with what Russia's doing in other country's affairs?  China? 

 

I'm all for a balanced discussion.  But here on TVF, many just go right after the US.  Blaming everything including their childhood pimples on the US. LOL

Since you've already gotten off the track, it's simply not true that the main players in Yemen are saudi arabis and iran. Iran is a minor player compared to what the Saudis, the UAE and the USA are up to there.  

[pegman]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

I'm all for a balanced discussion.  But here on TVF, many just go right after the US.  Blaming everything including their childhood pimples on the US. LOL

It's a Math thing. When blaming the USA for conflicts it has been proven that answer is correct 97.35% of the time.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

@craigt3365

This thread is about US military budget and not about that of Russia or China.

 

Now you get my point.  Once a topic comes up about the US, the first many do is...what about Iraq?  What about Vietnam?  Etc, etc, etc.  Off topic immediately.  And many times, not even relevant.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Since you've already gotten off the track, it's simply not true that the main players in Yemen are saudi arabis and iran. Iran is a minor player compared to what the Saudis, the UAE and the USA are up to there.  

Iran is far from a minor player in this effort.  Especially via the various terrorist groups they support.   The US is a minor player compared to Iran and Saudi Arabia.  UAE is in there as are others.  Like Syria, a proxy war at it's worst.

 

http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Three-EA-states-going-to-war---in-Yemen-/2558-2936912-4jupi1z/index.html

 

Quote

 

At least three East African nations — Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan — are reported to be directly involved in the war raging in Yemen, a country a short distance from the Horn of Africa.

 

Sudan recently acknowledged that it has dispatched a battalion of troops to Yemen to join a Saudi Arabia-led coalition fighting the al-Houthi rebel group.

 

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-iran-houthis/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22R

 

Quote

 

Exclusive: Iran steps up support for Houthis in Yemen's war - sources

Iran is sending advanced weapons and military advisers to Yemen’s rebel Houthi movement, stepping up support for its Shi‘ite ally in a civil war whose outcome could sway the balance of power in the Middle East, regional and Western sources say.

 

Iran’s enemy Saudi Arabia is leading a Sunni Arab coalition fighting the Houthis in the impoverished state on the tip of the Arabian peninsula - part of the same regional power struggle that is fuelling the war in Syria.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)

 

Even the UK is involved, as per the above link.

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, pegman said:

It's a Math thing. When blaming the USA for conflicts it has been proven that answer is correct 97.35% of the time.

BS. Another incorrect statement.  Your posts prove you are anti-US.  Like the one above.

[Grouse]

Maybe Boing will now be able to get off the backs of AirBus and Bombardier and concentrate on the billions it is about to receive from congress ?

[baboon]

51 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

BS. Another incorrect statement.  Your posts prove you are anti-US.  Like the one above.

Even if they do, so what? What is your problem?

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, baboon said:

Even if they do, so what? What is your problem?

Trolls.  Know of any? LOL