|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
As long as you use the same calculations for all nations.
I mean don't Koreans in the US send money back home? No one ever counted that as US aid before |
I agree. Traditionally these remittances have not been included in Aid totals but in today's day and age its important to include them because they do have an effect on a nation's economy, see Mexico/US relations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The US gives Israel about 3 or 4 billion a year. Israel has a GDP of about 100 Billion dollars.
A loss of 3 % of GDP is a severe recession but it would not be fatal.
How much does the US spend on South Korea's defense?
Somewhere between 3 & 20 billion dollars a year.
|
The difference is that out of the 4 billion we give Israel a year, 2-3 billion is in military aid, which doesn't figure into the economy as much. It figures into ours, and it saves them some money, but I'm not talking about a recession that would destroy Israel, I'm talking about a couple hundred thousand Islamic fundamentalist partisans who would come pouring across the boarders supported by the armies of Israels neighbors with the possible exception of Jordan and Egypt.
Also, where do you get these numbers for S. Korea aid? I'd really like to see a link to where you get your information. If by that you mean the troops we have stationed here, there is a reason that those aren't figured into military support, because we have them there to support our control over the Pacific, not just to protect S. Korea. That's like saying we give Germany 100 billion dollars a year to support our troops we still have stationed there. Not true. We have bases scattered around the world so that we can respond quickly to any threat that presents itself and to put on a show of force for the surrounding powers. In fact, the only "aid" I was able to find that we give to Korea isn't aid at all, but billions of dollars in investments and loans, both of which are in the interests of american business.
| Quote: |
| The UN is a dictators club. It doesn't have much moral authority. |
No argument here, but I don't see how that supports your point. The UN actually used to have some power when they were a puppet organization for the US back in the 50's and 60's. When the USSR and China began really using it to their benefit and the UN started ruling against us, we decided to ignore it.
| Quote: |
| Iran has also been out to control conquer the gulf and the mideast and they have been out to get the US for 25 years. |
I never said they weren't, just like I never said they were a threat to us. I said we make them appear as a threat because we don't have the mad Russians to fear anymore.
| Quote: |
| each situation is different. Besides China is as interested in making money as anything else while Iran is interested in conquering and controling the mideast. More than anything China has shown some willingness to compromise. Iran is stll out to follow the vision of Khomeni. |
You have it backwards. We are willing to work with China because, economically, it is in our interests. The fact that they are run by people just as in the wrong as Iran doesn't matter oone bit because they are willing to sing our song. We can get something from China that we can't get from anywhere else and that is the manufactured goods that are cheaper than anywhere else in the world. It's not that Iran isn't willing to work with us, it's that we aren't willing to work with them because they won't let our oil companies control their business through investment. It all stems back to their nationalizing the oil industry after the overthrow of the Shah. We didn't care that there was a new governemnt, we happily work with the scum of the earth any time it serves our interests, but we were mad because our investors didn't get their money back plus the profits. In essence, we built up the industry and then the "stole" it from us, in the eyes of the people making decisions. (In reality we stole it from them when we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a monarch. Isn't democracy great?
| Quote: |
The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military. Many nations spend far more.
Besides much of what the US spends on the military is for things like housing , and medical care and education and pensions |
True, the official military spending is at just under half a trillion dollars a year and our GDP is about 12.5 trillion, but those numbers don't include about 15 billion for the dept of energy, they don't include 300 billion a year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't actually include the veterans benefits for the troops, they don't include interest on money we borrow to pay for wars and equipment for the troops we don't have the ready cash on hand for, and most importantly, they don't include discretionary funding for the Pentagon which now makes up about 50% of of those funds. So when you add it all together, we aren't spending 4% of the GDP on the military, we are spending more like 25-40% on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can't include money that individuals send home from a country aid. At least not list it in government aid. Private, fine. And yes it does have an impact on an economy, but it affects the host countries economy as well, usually more so than for the recipient. That's like calling investment a type of aid. Its business. Aid is a handout. It's like saying, "here, we have this, we don't need it and you do, so take it. It's on us." That's why they don't include the loan guarantees. Yes, it might be de facto aid, but it's not supposed to be. Its taking advantage of a loophole that makes it easier to support a country without having to answer for it. The American people say "We can't spend any more money for Israel." and the government replies "Oh, this isnt a gift. They are going to pay it back." And then nobody bothers to find out if they ever do. Neither of you seem to know, and I sure don't either, though I bet we could figure it out if we cared enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The difference is that out of the 4 billion we give Israel a year, 2-3 billion is in military aid, which doesn't figure into the economy as much. It figures into ours, and it saves them some money, but I'm not talking about a recession that would destroy Israel, I'm talking about a couple hundred thousand Islamic fundamentalist partisans who would come pouring across the boarders supported by the armies of Israels neighbors with the possible exception of Jordan and Egypt. |
As long as Israel can buy weapons from the US they would be ok. They don't need to be give them.If the US was to refuse to sell weapons to Israel .Israel would be in big trouble in the long run.
I see your point.
For the many US companies like Intel and Microsoft have substantial investments in Israel .
| Quote: |
| Also, where do you get these numbers for S. Korea aid? I'd really like to see a link to where you get your information. If by that you mean the troops we have stationed here, there is a reason that those aren't figured into military support, because we have them there to support our control over the Pacific, not just to protect S. Korea. That's like saying we give Germany 100 billion dollars a year to support our troops we still have stationed there. Not true. We have bases scattered around the world so that we can respond quickly to any threat that presents itself and to put on a show of force for the surrounding powers. In fact, the only "aid" I was able to find that we give to Korea isn't aid at all, but billions of dollars in investments and loans, both of which are in the interests of american business. |
| Quote: |
Washington continues to maintain a large military presence in East Asia despite the collapse of Soviet communism and the growing strength of America's allies. Particularly dramatic is the transformation of the Korean peninsula, where the United States spends between $15 billion and $20 billion a year to defend South Korea, a nation fully capable of defending itself.
In the aftermath of World War II, America's global interventionist foreign policy appeared to have a purpose: containment of the hegemonic threat posed by the Soviet Union and its satellites. Today, however, there is nothing left to contain. America's enemies are a handful of dismal, impoverished dictatorships. |
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-49.html
You will find in the NY Times Americans wearing out their welecome in Asia that the US pays 85% of the cost of keeping US forces in Korea
Global Security and Time Magazine put the number at between 10- 13 billion dollars a year.
The US spends a lot of money keeping US forces in Korea . Now Madcap can you gve us a mission that would require land locked ground forces from Korea? I mean you think the US is going to invade China with 25,000 soldiers.
Korea is the weakest natiion in North East Asia where everyone is powerful . Russia Japan and China. US forces leave they have a lot less to not only defend themselves from North Korea but also to settle disputes with their neighbors.
| Quote: |
| I never said they weren't, just like I never said they were a threat to us. I said we make them appear as a threat because we don't have the mad Russians to fear anymore. |
they have killed lots of Americans. They are also a threat to US economic security cause of all the oil in the mideast. Now Iran doesn't have any specal rights to any oil that is not in Iran. Agreed?
| Quote: |
| You have it backwards. We are willing to work with China because, economically, it is in our interests. The fact that they are run by people just as in the wrong as Iran doesn't matter oone bit because they are willing to sing our song. We can get something from China that we can't get from anywhere else and that is the manufactured goods that are cheaper than anywhere else in the world. It's not that Iran isn't willing to work with us, it's that we aren't willing to work with them because they won't let our oil companies control their business through investment. It all stems back to their nationalizing the oil industry after the overthrow of the Shah. We didn't care that there was a new governemnt, we happily work with the scum of the earth any time it serves our interests, but we were mad because our investors didn't get their money back plus the profits. In essence, we built up the industry and then the "stole" it from us, in the eyes of the people making decisions. (In reality we stole it from them when we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a monarch. Isn't democracy great? |
1. the US screwed up in 1953 no argument.
2. Iran in fact has had a standing offer from the US that if they gave up their war the US would drop sanctions. See the case of Libya.
The fact is that Iran does't want to compromise.
| Quote: |
| True, the official military spending is at just under half a trillion dollars a year and our GDP is about 12.5 trillion, but those numbers don't include about 15 billion for the dept of energy, they don't include 300 billion a year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't actually include the veterans benefits for the troops, they don't include interest on money we borrow to pay for wars and equipment for the troops we don't have the ready cash on hand for, and most importantly, they don't include discretionary funding for the Pentagon which now makes up about 50% of of those funds. So when you add it all together, we aren't spending 4% of the GDP on the military, we are spending more like 25-40% on it. |
If the US was spendng 25 % of the US GDP that means the US would be spending 3 trillion dollars a year on defense.
You might be to add a few billions but you wold not get close to a trilllion and in fact this year Iraq and Afghanistan wars are on budget not off budget.
Anyway after reading your posts your views seem a lot more moderate than I thought at first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Quote: |
As long as you use the same calculations for all nations.
I mean don't Koreans in the US send money back home? No one ever counted that as US aid before |
I agree. Traditionally these remittances have not been included in Aid totals but in today's day and age its important to include them because they do have an effect on a nation's economy, see Mexico/US relations. |
Ok then in principle I agree with your view .
at the same time the column in the CS monitor while it makes a good point was very biased and one sided. The point it makes is valid but its numbers are way off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You will find in the NY Times Americans wearing out their welecome in Asia that the US pays 85% of the cost of keeping US forces in Korea |
If we ship them somewhere, we could end up paying 100% of the cost of the troops. I doubt that we would bring them home, as we maintain a sufficient number of active troops here anyway. Besides, you also have to consider the cost of moving the bases, building new ones or expanding existing ones to fit the incoming troops. The fact is, S. Korea is part of our extended defense network. They aren't there to invade China, they are there to protect an important ally in the region. As you said yourself, Korea is surrounded by powerful countries. It's a great base of operations that could easily be expanded in the even of a major conflict with any of those powers. Those troops are there to help hold the country. Look at it this way. SK and America just signed the FTA, right? So in a few years, American companies and businessmen are going to be making literally billions of dollars off this deal. These are the same people that helped our governemnt officials get ellected and they don't care a bit about spending 20 billion of the taxpayer's money, because in a roundabout way, it makes them money. I would stake a lot of money on the odds that once N and S Korea are rejoined, the troops may mostly pull out, but I bet we keep a couple AirForce bases there and at least one large army base. Do we currently have a naval base in SK? If we do, that one will stay as well. Military presense is almost as powerful for the US as miltary might.
| Quote: |
| 2. Iran in fact has had a standing offer from the US that if they gave up their war the US would drop sanctions. See the case of Libya. |
That deal is a face saving gesture by the US governemnt. It's the same type of deal that the Israelis offer the Palestinians. OK if you stop the violence, we will make some deals. Well the government of Iran doesn't have a hand in every little act of terrorism that is committed in Iraq, just like the Palestinian leaders aren't telling every suicide bomber where to blow himself up, these people act autonomously out of a well deserved hate for the west. The governments can sign any piece of paper they want, but the militants don't have a say in it and if they think it's unfair, they can continue fighting giving Israel or America the chance to say "Well, you aren't holding up your end of the bargain, so we don't feel like we have to do squat for you."
As far as being moderate...I've called myself a "realist" in the past. I do have some moderate views, I also have some radical left and some fairly radical right views. My only concern in politics is seeing through the bullsh1t and supporting whomever happens to be the most sincere in seeing to the needs of the people (ALL people, regardless of race, religion, or propaganda that has been fed to me about them) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If we ship them somewhere, we could end up paying 100% of the cost of the troops |
.
Why have troops defending another country besides it cost more money to keep soldiers overseas than in the US. All the facilities that are needed.
| Quote: |
I doubt that we would bring them home, as we maintain a sufficient number of active troops here anyway |
.
I thought the US was thinking of expanding the army? If the US had sufficent troops why would the US be doing so? Many say the US doesn't have enough troops in Iraq.
| Quote: |
Besides, you also have to consider the cost of moving the bases, building new ones or expanding existing ones to fit the incoming troops |
.
Or just leaving them.
But why in South Korea? IF it is for the US why not send them to England or to Thailand or whereever.
| Quote: |
The fact is, S. Korea is part of our extended defense network |
.
During the cold war. Now ?
| Quote: |
They aren't there to invade China, they are there to protect an important ally in the region |
.
Yes they are doing a great service to Korea.
| Quote: |
As you said yourself, Korea is surrounded by powerful countries. |
Yes
| Quote: |
It's a great base of operations that could easily be expanded in the even of a major conflict with any of those powers |
.
South Korea is no longer strategically important to the US. Exactly why does the US need bases in Korea for a fight with China or Russia?
Especially when each dollar could be used for something like f-22's.
| Quote: |
Those troops are there to help hold the country. Look at it this way. SK and America just signed the FTA, right? So in a few years, American companies and businessmen are going to be making literally billions of dollars off this deal. |
Ok that sort of makes sense. But it is a great service to Korea.
and for a long time Korea was not an important country economically. Only since 1988 did they become so.
| Quote: |
These are the same people that helped our governemnt officials get ellected and they don't care a bit about spending 20 billion of the taxpayer's money, because in a roundabout way, it makes them money. I would stake a lot of money on the odds that once N and S Korea are rejoined, the troops may mostly pull out, but I bet we keep a couple AirForce bases there and at least one large army base. Do we currently have a naval base in SK? If we do, that one will stay as well. Military presense is almost as powerful for the US as miltary might. |
Yes I agree. It works like this. If the US leaves the region then there is a huge chance that Japan and Korea get into an arms race and even go nuclear. Not good for the US.
Nevertheless the US is still doing a great service to Korea.
| Quote: |
| 2. Iran in fact has had a standing offer from the US that if they gave up their war the US would drop sanctions. See the case of Libya. |
| Quote: |
That deal is a face saving gesture by the US governemnt. |
I don't know it was made by Clinton. The US isn't bothering Libya anymore.
| Quote: |
It's the same type of deal that the Israelis offer the Palestinians. OK if you stop the violence, we will make some deals. |
The situations are different. In 2000 Israel accepted Bill Clintons offer that would have given the Palestinian side 95% of the West Bank 1/2 or Jerusalem and 30 Billion dollars. Arafat said no.
But why ought Iran not give up their war? and while you are at it if Iran doesn't give up their war then why ought the US not hit back at them?
| Quote: |
Well the government of Iran doesn't have a hand in every little act of terrorism that is committed in Iraq, |
No only about 5% nevertheless Iran is still going after the US and they have been doing so for a long time.
| Quote: |
just like the Palestinian leaders aren't telling every suicide bomber where to blow himself up, |
No but they are behind some. allow others to happen.
Abbas isn't bad but Hamas is.
| Quote: |
these people act autonomously out of a well deserved hate for the west. |
Well , it is more complicated than that but be sure there is no innocent party in that conflict.
| Quote: |
The governments can sign any piece of paper they want, but the militants don't have a say in it and if they think it's unfair, they can continue fighting giving Israel or America the chance to say "Well, you aren't holding up your end of the bargain, so we don't feel like we have to do squat for you." |
Ok , nevertheless governments can do a lot especially in the mideast. Most of the regimes there are police states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's so pathetic is that enablers like Big Bird would even entertain the thought that the Iranian President meant anything constructive in his comments about Israel. The very fact that he makes a point of talking about Israel's demise on any level should be enough to alarm even the most apologetic liberal.
If Bush intimated even the hint of an insinuation in like terms he would be branded a warmonger. Come to think of it, that was what happened when he described the "axis of evil." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
