knowltok2
Deity
I am going to leave this obvious piece of bait lying and not respond.
-
We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!
Is Your Country Spending Enough On Defense?
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
I am going to leave this obvious piece of bait lying and not respond.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Aussies were greatly relieved to hear the Prince of Wales and Repulse were heading towards Singapore in 1941..... And these days it makes us colonials feel so secure to know good old mother England is looking after us!
You really should pursue a career as a comedian MrPres, perhaps you could team up with Sharpie - what a double act!
Statements like this (and above) are an obvious troll, what suprises me is that an Englishmen like yourself feels the need to indulge in this tawdry boasting - you and Sharpie would still make a good double act.
Exactly how is an invasion of Canada going to happen?
I suppose:
They could land on Vancouver Island, if they could get by the entire American Pacific Fleet.
They could land in Labrador if they could get by the entire American Atlantic Fleet and the fishing congestion in the Atlantic.
They could land in the Northwest Territories if they could get by Norad, polar bears, and live in the North Pole.
They could even invade through the CAN-US border if they could only get by the entire US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
The Royal Navy best in the world? Protecting the Commonwealth?
That is patently false. It is not designed for such a role anymore, given the defence cuts and restructuring of the late 1960s and 1970s.
They would have trouble fighting the Falklands war again with what they have.
It remains what is was converted to: a navy to support NATO operations. It only has VSTOL carriers, which are hardly the most fearsome instruments of power projection. The Royal Navy long ago lost its role as a global fleet - arguably, in the interwar period of the 1920s.
The last time that the Royal Navy was a true protector of the Commonwealth was perhaps the Great War, or beforehand, when they had enough of the capital ships of the day to defeat any foe.
Now, if it was to go and build a dozen nuclear fleet carriers, plus a plethora of cruisers, destroyers and battleships
, then it might be a different tale.
That is patently false. It is not designed for such a role anymore, given the defence cuts and restructuring of the late 1960s and 1970s.
They would have trouble fighting the Falklands war again with what they have.
It remains what is was converted to: a navy to support NATO operations. It only has VSTOL carriers, which are hardly the most fearsome instruments of power projection. The Royal Navy long ago lost its role as a global fleet - arguably, in the interwar period of the 1920s.
The last time that the Royal Navy was a true protector of the Commonwealth was perhaps the Great War, or beforehand, when they had enough of the capital ships of the day to defeat any foe.
Now, if it was to go and build a dozen nuclear fleet carriers, plus a plethora of cruisers, destroyers and battleships
, then it might be a different tale.
I can only point out all the military assistance that we provide. Not only does it cost money but it also costs the lives of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives. Can you place a value on that and say that the money contribution by country X that doesn't provide military assistance is greater? I know that the U.K. also provides military assistance so I am not pointing that country out, hell, I am not blaming any country, this is just an attempt at a defense of my country. Would I like to see it help out more? Yes but taxes suck enough as it is....
When you are the biggest baddest mutha out there you get ppl mad at you, especially your neighbors (Canada) and countries like France (why pick on France? Because it is fun!).
Greadius
:yeah:
Now, now, be fair. We don't get other countries mad at us because of what we do, we get other countries mad at us because they can't do it themselves and are naturally jealous. I don't believe hedgemony was a great fear for the British when they had it, or France deriding the expansion of interests when they were spreading their forces over Africa and Indochina.Originally posted by PaleHorse76
When you are the biggest baddest mutha out there you get ppl mad at you, especially your neighbors (Canada) and countries like France (why pick on France? Because it is fun!).
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I think there has been a little bit of mis-understanding. The Statement about the British navy being the best is an example of the famous (obviously not that famous) "dry British wit". I know our navy is terrible and would probably lose to the Swiss (not that the Swiss navy is bad but it is the only one in the world which has no ports of its own which I assume it kind of a hinderance) Its like when the British comment on our rail system, we invented the train (at least I think we did and isn't that what is really important) and yet we have one of the worse train systems of any developed nation. It is hard to explain but the British love failure, especially glorious and heroic failure. Our navy was the best in the world and so its current state is quite funny, at least too me it is. Also I was commenting on the uselessness of the commonwealth, I mean Zimbabwe aren't really that worried about a one year suspension are they? But we British like to think that we have some control over our former colonies and I think they like to play along with our illusions. So in conclusion don't always take what an Englishman (and Englishwomen) said quite so literally and you may see the humour in it.
No people don't. People get mad when you do something to get them mad. I am not saying that the US has done anything that justifies people getting mad at them (well maybe the steel tariff, but that was another thread). However when you are the biggest, strongest, most arrogant, most powerful, most democratic, people get jealous not mad. I accept that point that America does more than its fair share with military assistance. However this is probably more to do with Ameriica self-interest and national security than a gesture of goodwill. That aside, do you think countries such as Botswana, South Africa, China, Taiwan etc need military assistance? I think they need aid a lot more. However thats just my opinion and you probably think that America is doing far more than its fair share but you have to ask yourself is doing more such a bad thing?
I'd argue China and Taiwan.
China has a massive military and nuclear capability already, and the economy to improve situations, but the ruling party doesn't want to fully liberalize and lose their control.
Taiwan has a high standard of living.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html
$17,800 per capita...
That's $100 more than New Zealand
MrP. as I said "Would I like to see it help out more? Yes but taxes suck enough as it is....". There is a difficult balance to strike when it comes to giving. You can give all if you want but the human can't do it willing...normally. Example, not an attack on you, but an example: You state that the US is not doing enough. May I ask you why you have a computer? Why haven't you taken the money instead and sent it to the poor people in the world? Why? Because I am guessing that if you aren't a minor, sorry, don't know your age, I am guessing that you feel that you deserve some way to relax in life and that is why you spend money on toys such as computers and games like Civilization 1, 2, 3 etc.. So why shouldn't America also feel that it has done it's part...surely the million/billions we give are helpful and should America really give more because people in other 1st world countries, who play computer games, have conditioned air, drink bottled water, watch cable TV or even better yet, watch government subsidized TV (the gov't pays part of the TV companies bills so that the population can watch commercial free TV)?
Questions that cannot be answered easily, especially if you are one to indulge in these luxuries (TV, AC, Games, Water).
Questions that cannot be answered easily, especially if you are one to indulge in these luxuries (TV, AC, Games, Water).
Greadius
:yeah:
I disagree. Last statistical anaylsis I saw comparing Navies was about 5 years old, and Britian was rated the second best in the world. It tied with the U.S. in terms of training preparation, but of course fell behind in tonnage (U.S. has 50.5% of the world's military naval tonnage
). Of course, I'm not British so I might be wrong. EVERYTHING the American government does is filtered through a window of national interests... I doubt there are many governments in the world that allocate large amounts of money to goodwill.Each country has a unique situation and has unique needs because of it. Every country does not need a blank check from the U.S., because if every country DID get that a good 3/4's would squander it and ask for more within my lifetime. But since you mentioned 4 specific countries...
Taiwan needs military aid to remain independent from China.
China can got to hell
South Africa needs limited military assistance to maintain a defensive posture in a volatile region.
Botswana, being the longest lasting stable democracy in Africa and bordered by 3 chaotic nations that frequently participate in warfare, needs military aid to defend its fragile and admirable institutions.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I know that America does pay a lot of money to developing countries whether it is aid or some other form. However the UN has a recommeded amount of aid, which is 0.7% of GDP. I don't think that spending that much who really affect the standard of living in the US that much. However the US government (both Democratic and Republic) think that 0.1% of GDP is enough for the world's richest country to pay. America pulled out of the Kyoto agreement because it wanted to protect its economy and the same for the steel tariff. I think that since you are willing to go against the world to improve your own situation I don't think it is too much to ask that you give slightly more money to the poorest nations. I accept that you have to look after your own but by having a better off world would also benefit America. Think about it, more consumers to buy your goods, more labour to use in your multinationals, more cinema-goers to watch Hollywood movies, etc. Not only the world would benefit from more America aid but so would America.
Rather then just shoveling money at other countries, I would rather that they first:
A: Show where their PRESENT resources are being spent. If the government is spending 50% of its budget on the military to supress the population, shoveling money at them in the hopes it fixes their water supply isnt going to do much.
B: Have some way to control where those funds are being spent. Before we give any country foreign aid, we damn well better be making sure it's going where we want it too.
C: Impose some sort of control over their policies. Interfering in their goverment and affairs? You better beleive it. If we're giving them money to essentaily bail themselves out of a situation which they likely put themselves into to begin with, we should have some say in their policies. In many cases, the reason they have such horrible infrastructure is because of curruption or failed policies. I'd rather we went in restructured them to the point where they WOULDNT need future help, rather then get them used to a continuous, yearly fund.
A: Show where their PRESENT resources are being spent. If the government is spending 50% of its budget on the military to supress the population, shoveling money at them in the hopes it fixes their water supply isnt going to do much.
B: Have some way to control where those funds are being spent. Before we give any country foreign aid, we damn well better be making sure it's going where we want it too.
C: Impose some sort of control over their policies. Interfering in their goverment and affairs? You better beleive it. If we're giving them money to essentaily bail themselves out of a situation which they likely put themselves into to begin with, we should have some say in their policies. In many cases, the reason they have such horrible infrastructure is because of curruption or failed policies. I'd rather we went in restructured them to the point where they WOULDNT need future help, rather then get them used to a continuous, yearly fund.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
You mean like you did with the Marshall Plan. It seems to me like there is one policy for developed nations and one for developing ones. Sure there is corruption in many of these countries but I don't think that is why there is little or no infrastructure. Developing countries are stuck in a cycle, they have low saving ratios which means there is little money available for investment which in turn means low economic growth which results in a low saving ratio. A way out of this cycle is to inject external funds, i.e. aid from developed nations such as the US. If you impose control over countries in exchange for aid then expect to be accused of being imperialistic. Anyway, that is the function of organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF. They try (not force) to get countries to adopt "market-friendly" policies. However you must remember that they is not clearly defined way to economic success, many ways have been tried and some may have bought success to some countries but they do not work everywhere. Each country has a different background, different natural resources, different culture or other words a different situation. So you see the United States cannot come in and say to a country you can have x billions in you change these policies because there is not way of knowing if these changes will bring about any successes.
The only way developing countries wouldn't need our help is if they were as developed as us (or more developed). This may be the ultimate goal but no-one realistically thinks it will be achievable any time soon. It will take time and it will take money, no matter how much restructuring you do. And it will require a continous yearly fund. So open up your wallets America (and the rest of the world) because the amount of money going to the developing nations is simply not enough.
Greadius
:yeah:
Where did the U.N. pull that figure from??
Not that it is extremely important, but the fact is that the U.S. GOVERNMENT spends 0.1% of the GDP. Once again, that is ONLY THE GOVERNMENT. NO private investment is calculated into that figure; if it were it would be much higher... probably approaching the .7% figure. What upsets the U.N. is that it doesn't get to use private investment on paying for its beauracracy, so it doesn't count.
And I agree Shaffer's statement about controling where the investment goes, but you have to state it in a more friendlier way or the Anti-Westerners will start freaking out about soverignity and imperialism.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
That is because private investment is not aid. Are you telling me that when Ford builds a car factory in Mexico it should be counted as aid? I don't think you quite understand what aid is. Also I think the UN didn't just pull the 0.7% figure from nowhere but spent a lot of time considering what is a fair amount and what is an amount acceptable to developed nations.
From CNN.com regarding aid
"Despite the increase in giving, the United States "is at the very bottom of all the rich countries in being generous to others," Carter said. "We give about one one-thousandth of our gross national product to humanitarian aid in other countries, including AIDS and everything else."
Japanese and Europeans average four times as much, and Scandinavian countries give seven times as much, Carter said."
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/22/bush.latin/index.html
Note that it is only the Scandinavian countries that gives 0,7% of thier GDP in aid. As recommended by the UN.
Also, the % of aid given by the US includes the aid against AIDS and "everything else". According to the article President Bush proposed a 50 percent increase in "core development assistance" (whatever that really means). Even if it means a 50% increase of ALL aid it would just be an increase from 0,1% to 0.15%.
"Despite the increase in giving, the United States "is at the very bottom of all the rich countries in being generous to others," Carter said. "We give about one one-thousandth of our gross national product to humanitarian aid in other countries, including AIDS and everything else."
Japanese and Europeans average four times as much, and Scandinavian countries give seven times as much, Carter said."
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/22/bush.latin/index.html
Note that it is only the Scandinavian countries that gives 0,7% of thier GDP in aid. As recommended by the UN.
Also, the % of aid given by the US includes the aid against AIDS and "everything else". According to the article President Bush proposed a 50 percent increase in "core development assistance" (whatever that really means). Even if it means a 50% increase of ALL aid it would just be an increase from 0,1% to 0.15%.
Originally posted by basta72
Note that it is only the Scandinavian countries that gives 0,7% of thier GDP in aid. As recommended by the UN.
Thank you, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland for helping the UN extort refugees in Kenya and promote sex trafficing in Bosnia. Where would we be with out you?
Greadius
:yeah:
A lot richer
Economic aid is a bureaucratic farce. 25 years from now its the investments being made by evil, exploitative, heartless corporations that will lift those nations out of poverty, not U.N. mandated handouts.
Similar threads
