.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
8
Little worm: Thai teen attacks classmate over penis size insult
Little worm: Thai teen attacks classmate over penis size insult They Can't Handle The Truth. Size Does Matter. 🙏 -
9
Publicity stunt: PM Paetongtarn launches monthly TV show
Daughter is doing what Daddy tells her.🙃🙃 -
-
40
Russian Tourist Killed, Two Injured in Pattaya Big Bike Crash
Artem Avdeev 99% sure Russian "big biker". Bitter irony. Russian tourist coming to Thailand to be killed on the road by another Russian. -
279
A death sentence for some
The good people of the EU already fund the world's largest overseas humanitarian aid budget, about $50bn a year. The USAID provided about $27 billion. Total non-military aid was about $40bn. Per capita, the US was the lowest donor in the OECD, a bit behind France, but at least ahead of Turkey, a slightly backward near-Middle Eastern nation, so a win there. There is an interesting with Trumps views of NATO being a protection racket, with member states not ponying up "enough" (some arbitrary number), with the US not ponying up in Overseas aid. Defence and overseas aid are inextricably linked. If the US, and others, had spent a relatively small sum not letting Afghanistan descend into some sort of Mad Max hellhole, 911 and the GWOT might never have happened, and 10,000 Americans (WTC, Afghanistan and Iraq dead) might still have been alive, and the US would have about $6 trillion extra in the bank. There also would be less of a refugee crisis. Arguably, if Europe reduced its aid budget, the US might see its threat level rise. A correct balance needs to be sought. "Aid" through military spending is pretty expensive. All that kit is top end. I worked for many years as a defence contractor, and saw the sums frittered away by the US and UK, driven mainly in the belief that their militaries should never have anything off the shelf, with the defence departments of both countries pouring vast sums into private enterprise to fund programmes that mostly fall by the wayside because they failed to achieve the unrealistic fag packet requirements of years earlier. At its peak, military spending in the British Empire, ruling most of the globe at the time, was about 2.5% of GDP. The British Army was about 140,000, with 70,000 at home, 30,000 in India, and the rest around the rest of the Empire. Of course, they were supplemented by good value colonial troops, which barring the odd mutiny, could be assured of keeping the restless locals in check, and provide gainful employment, maintaining Pax Britannica. Remarkably,, estimates for the Roman Empire give about 2.5% of their GDP on spending on Legions etc. Like the British, there were not that many actual Roman legionnaires. Rome cultivated armies among their vanquished, no doubt with a mixture of carrot and stick, with the carrot being money pumped into the defeated state (call it overseas aid). The stick being decimation. If you go to Hadrians Wall in England, you will see the Dacian legacy. The Dacian Cohort largely built the Wall. Dacia had been conquered by Rome in AD100, but by AD200, they formed most of that northerly defence in Britannia. Dacia is on the shores of the Back Sea, where modern Romania is. The spends about 3.4% of GDP on defence, but some of that is not spent on Americans, but is things like 2000lb bombs for Israel. Trump wants to raise it to 5% and for Europe to match it. Trum is a p*ss poor student of history, because Pax Americana has been pretty shakey of late. USD go much further outside of the US than inside the US. He's giving away US made bombs to Israel, paying full price for them. Instead, he could have paid to have a bomb factory built in Israel, with lower wages etc Probably would have saved money, with the same result, maybe even better, because Israel has more jobs. Which might have helped a few Arab Israelis, which might have persuaded some of them not to go on a rampage. Who knows. Instead of giving the Afghan money for a surely Afghan Army, you go to Afghanistan, and you raise an American Army made up of Afghans, who will lord it over the locals. because the Americans pay well, but way cheaper than a GI. No need to persuade an Afghan to go fight for an Afghan government that never cared for them, because instead, he's fighting for Uncle Sam, who is benevolant, and does care. You just a US military full of Colonel Kurtzs, willing to go full native for years on end. The British used to call these Indian Old hands, colonial officers who had never really gone back home in decades. Anyhow, we are where we are. -
4
Lord Mandelson Retracts Trump Criticism, Calls Previous Remarks "Ill-Judged and Wrong"
More like his saying "oh shot all" If i do not retract what I said then I will never have a chance to be the US ambassador. I better kiss butt now and hope Trump accepts my retraction. Personally, the guy should be denied the appointment. Hopefully, trump doesn't buy this retraction and refuses to grant him the position.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now