|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| I did state that equivalating these with freedom is stupid. |
Then you are chasing down and beating to death a straw man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
How do you remain a superpower? |
By running a strong economy, remaining on the cutting edge of science, and science education, not living beyond your means, not spending billions on imported energy, not using religious based reasoning to vote presidents or make decisions (Bush), not running trade deficits with virtually every nation, and retaining a formidable armed forces.
It's very simple. If America can't balance its books, fix it's educational system and develop energy independence, then it will not be the world's pre eminent power for long. And that worries me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher you're a one trick pony with some kind of masculinity fetish. Why don't you make your next avatar the guy from Motorhead and just be done with it?
1.2 billion on a stealth bomber is ridiculous given the state of military expenditures in the rest of the world and the current state of American infrastructure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
1.2 billion on a stealth bomber is ridiculous given the state of military expenditures in the rest of the world and the current state of American infrastructure. |
I'd like to see you and Gopher go at it on this issue.
Oh, and links make me more persuaded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| I did state that equivalating these with freedom is stupid. |
Then you are chasing down and beating to death a straw man. |
No less you for misinterpeting me. Lets give it a rest, unless you wish to engage me on what I've clearly stated as my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jkelly80 wrote: |
1.2 billion on a stealth bomber is ridiculous given the state of military expenditures in the rest of the world and the current state of American infrastructure. |
I'd like to see you and Gopher go at it on this issue.
Oh, and links make me more persuaded. |
Nothing to go at.
"Jill [oh my I'm droll, aren't I?] you're immature/idealistic/emotional/menstruating and if you'd only familiarize yourself with [some poli sci theory/professor/pretentious French term in italics] you'd be well suited to blah blah blah. Excuse me while I pleasure myself to a photoshopped image of George Will spotting Tom Sizemore on a squat rack. Oh, I almost forgot. Your name's Jill [tee hee!]" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My position is simple: the American govt and -- underneath it, the American economy -- has diverse and complex interests abroad, including allies in all regions and on all continents. It maintains a forward presence. It does so through a military and through specific weapons systems it deems suitable for such a mission.
It has been so since as early as Mahan. If Jill and others here do not approve, then that is their right. But that is also too bad, as I seek not to justify, which seems to be your challenge, Kuros, but rather to explain, which is an entirely different approach. That is, as they say, just the way it is.
Also see The Interest of America in Sea Power, Present and Future [1897]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
Gopher you're a one trick pony with some kind of masculinity fetish. Why don't you make your next avatar the guy from Motorhead and just be done with it?
1.2 billion on a stealth bomber is ridiculous given the state of military expenditures in the rest of the world and the current state of American infrastructure. |
I think 1.2 billion's a bargin. A small force of B2s commands a lot of respect and fear. I'd cut it out of the more conventional forces. Tanks, artillery, carriers etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
It has been so since as early as Mahan.
|
Mahan! That's a good one. I've got 3-1 he name drops Clausewitz in the next one and calls it Vom Kriege. 4-1 for either Carrhae or Lepanto.
| Quote: |
If Jill and others |
The hits keep coming... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
My position is simple: the American govt and -- underneath it, the American economy -- has diverse and complex interests abroad, including allies in all regions and on all continents. It maintains a forward presence. It does so through a military and through specific weapons systems it deems suitable for such a mission.
It has been so since as early as Mahan. If Jill and others here do not approve, then that is their right. But that is also too bad, as I seek not to justify, which seems to be your challenge, Kuros, but rather to explain, which is an entirely different approach. That is, as they say, just the way it is.
Also see The Interest of America in Sea Power, Present and Future [1897]. |
Fair enough, and most of us here already know what America's policy is, making you rather redundant. But the biggest threats to America can't be met with planes, bombs or tanks. That is also just the way it is. If America doesn't realize what the real threats are, then it won't remain a superpower forever. But then no nation ever has. And that is also just the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
It has been so since as early as Mahan.
|
Mahan! That's a good one. I've got 3-1 he name drops Clausewitz in the next one and calls it Vom Kriege. 4-1 for either Carrhae or Lepanto.
|
I like Mahan.
Isn't he the beginning of the doctrine of defending America through a strong navy? That has worked out splendidly up until 9-11.
Alright, questions for each of you:
Jkelly,
The US only spends 4% of its GDP on the military. Meanwhile, China also spends about 4% of its GDP on the military. Isn't this the right balance?
Gopher,
Europe seems to be doing fine with minimal investments in the military. In fact, we bankroll their private defense industries. Shouldn't we take the 1937 model and adapt it? What I mean is, we can continue to develop new hardware, but keep only a few prototypes and produce a minimal amount of actual stock. Should a Pearl Harbor happen or a sincere conventional threat, we can ramp up production in a hurry. In the meantime, we can invest in HumInt and low-tech peace-keeping abilities for current challenges from non-conventional foes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
It has been so since as early as Mahan.
|
Mahan! That's a good one. I've got 3-1 he name drops Clausewitz in the next one and calls it Vom Kriege. 4-1 for either Carrhae or Lepanto.
|
I like Mahan.
Isn't he the beginning of the doctrine of defending America through a strong navy? That has worked out splendidly up until 9-11.
Alright, questions for each of you:
Jkelly,
The US only spends 4% of its GDP on the military. Meanwhile, China also spends about 4% of its GDP on the military. Isn't this the right balance?
Gopher,
Europe seems to be doing fine with minimal investments in the military. In fact, we bankroll their private defense industries. Shouldn't we take the 1937 model and adapt it? What I mean is, we can continue to develop new hardware, but keep only a few prototypes and produce a minimal amount of actual stock. Should a Pearl Harbor happen or a sincere conventional threat, we can ramp up production in a hurry. In the meantime, we can invest in HumInt and low-tech peace-keeping abilities for current challenges from non-conventional foes. |
I like Mahan too. He's in the canon. But the name dropping is getting stale.
The China threat is a convienent bogeyman.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5148
| Quote: |
Beijing's real level of military spending is somewhere between the official budget and the Pentagon's bloated estimate. Most credible independent experts believe that the spending is in the range of $40 billion to $55 billion. While that is not a trivial level of defense expenditure, neither is it unduly alarming. It is comparable to the military budgets of several mid-size powers, including China's neighbor in East Asia, Japan. And it is utterly dwarfed by Washington's defense budget of more than $440 billion.
|
In terms of nominal GDP v. defense, China sits at about 2%, if nominal GDP is 2.7 trillion and defense is at 55 billion. Even if you go with the Pentagon's estimate of 90 billion, a ridiculous number used to line Lockheed's pockets, its still at only 3.3. But that's just nominal GDP.
Taking into account PPP GDP, which is what the CIA usually goes by, China's expenditure would be at 1.2%, assuming that the 90 billion number is correct. 1.2 Taking it at 55, that would bring it down to .7%.
Gopher's reaction is the same knee-jerk emotional crap he inevitably pastes over with his signature turgid prose. "If you question American ethics, you must want America to lose." Horseflop.
The US is demonstrably more ethical than China in terms of human rights and just exercise of power when in comes to foreign policy, but that's a very low bar to be compared to. China is a convenient bloody shirt to trot out when its time for defense appropriations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another good one, from Fred Kaplan.
http://www.slate.com/id/2141966/
| Quote: |
Take the budget. China officially says it's spending $35 billion on its military, a 14.7 percent increase over last year's budget, amounting to 1.5 percent of its gross national product. (The U.S. military budget is nearly 15 times as large and amounts to 4 percent of our GNP; Japan's and South Korea's defense budgets are larger than China's, too.) The report says that China's growth "sustains a trend that has persisted since the 1990s of defense budget growth rates exceeding economic growth"�but read on�"although the growth of defense expenditures has lagged behind the growth in overall government expenditures over the same period of time." (Emphasis mine.)
In other words, by the report's admission, the military is not the Chinese government's No. 1 priority. (For more on the budget figures, click here.)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Isn't he the beginning of the doctrine of defending America through a strong navy? |
Kuros: Mahan advocated a blue-water navy to defend American interests abroad, not the United States per se. Mere coastal defenses are sufficient for that.
I am not going to get into a direct debate with Jill. Her tactics tend to ridicule me for citing points and authorities while she merely cites her own self-derived (and self-righteous) opinions on this or that.
As far as your question about European affairs, I note that the U.S.-led NATO has kept the Europeans from each others' throats and also encouraged unification post-Second World War. Without an American military presence there, which has tended to suppress Russian, French, and/or German moves for regional hegemony, 1945 to the present, things might very well change for the worse. Same goes in the Middle East and the Far East, where strategic interests are at stake. Not so in subSaharan Africa, and for opposite reasons. I note political affairs there remain most unstable. For more on this, see Christopher Layne's Peace of Illusions (2006). Layne suggests change. The question is: how to go about it?
And I know, Jill, I know: I am name-dropping again. What can I say? Some of us read non-Google sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
|
| 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
