Slashdot Mirror
Domain: cia.gov
Stories and comments across the archive that link to cia.gov.
Comments · 2,355
-
Re:Ya Gotta Have Faith..
What the hell are you thinking? China has 1.298 billion people in its borders-- they have more people available for military service than there are, total, in the united states. Your paranoia has probably killed your last vestiges of common sense...
-
Get Smart.
"Cell Phone on a Chip"
I think Maxwell Smart was ahead of everyone else.
-
Re:Big $$$ industry is worth more than the planetI read a report that stated that 90% of england had problems with pollution.. I can definitely say that 90% of the US doesn't have this problem.
Care to cite a source? The CIA fact book on the UK and the US seem to disagree with you, to me they indicate that the US has more of a problem than the UK which is currently reducing much of its polution., while the US has 'water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management'.
-
Re:Big $$$ industry is worth more than the planetI read a report that stated that 90% of england had problems with pollution.. I can definitely say that 90% of the US doesn't have this problem.
Care to cite a source? The CIA fact book on the UK and the US seem to disagree with you, to me they indicate that the US has more of a problem than the UK which is currently reducing much of its polution., while the US has 'water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management'.
-
Re:Germany was a Democracy.
Meanwhile, there are many, many examples where Democracy did not work when an outside country attempted to force it upon another. Vietnam and Korea are two recent, US examples.
Korea worked -- or at least, the part of it under US influence did. -
Re:Meaningful Figure
Let's see... According to the CIA World Factbook, slightly more than a quarter of all internet users are in the USA. If we assume that Americans are overrepresented among Slashdotters (although I don't see why Slashdot could be more appealing to geeks in the USA than to geeks elsewhere), my guess would be that between 40% and 50% of all Slashdotters are American.
-
Re:Other things that to grow in 2005Why don't a bunch of IT companies set up shop in Costa Rica and pay their employees to move there?
They speak English in Belize, while in Costa Rica, Spanish is the official language.
From the fact book (Belize): ``Per capita GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $4,900 (2004 est.)''. If a company would pay me half my U.S. salary, I'd happily pay my own relocation expenses.
-
Re:Other things that to grow in 2005Why don't a bunch of IT companies set up shop in Costa Rica and pay their employees to move there?
They speak English in Belize, while in Costa Rica, Spanish is the official language.
From the fact book (Belize): ``Per capita GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $4,900 (2004 est.)''. If a company would pay me half my U.S. salary, I'd happily pay my own relocation expenses.
-
Re:Actually, it is.
You forget to take into consideration the notion of how long a person is able to work, which is what the SSA sets for benefits.
In my lifetime, the age has gone from 62 to 67 (over a period of 33 years). Currently, the average life expectancy in the US is 77.43 years for the total population.
That would suggest the IRS thinks you should work until you've hit 86.5% of your life expectancy. If people were to live until 200 years old, the SSA simply wouldn't give you any benefits until you hit the ripe old age of 173. -
Re:The economy strikes again...
No, but the workers presumably had some value before the layoffs. By my understanding of the article (I haven't been following this very much) their work had been redistributed by the miracles of the market economy while they remained in a job. Then, when there was no longer any reason for their continued employment, we find ourselves in the present. It's all just a general trend and you can't fight it. Your job's probably on the way offshore too as we speak. Did you read this article?
-
CIA = George Bush Center for Intelligence
maybe they'd have more luck if they changed the name of the agency?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/bush.html/ -
Note about the predictionI like this statement by Robert Hutchings in the introductory letter:
As I used to say to my students at Princeton, linear analysis will get you a much-changed caterpillar, but it won't get you a butterfly. For that you need a leap of imagination. We hope this project, and the dialogue it stimulates, will help us make that leap--not to predict the world of 2020, which is clearly beyond our capacity--but to better prepare for the kinds of challenges that may lie ahead.
-
Re:2010You're missing 2010 from the "Fictional Scenario: Pax Americana"
The 2010 terrorist attacks in Europe had a lot to do with it.
Make of that what you will... -
Cyber Warfare?
A rather small mention...
but at least it's on the radar.
Perhaps that means they will start taking us geeks seriously when we notice a patern in the interuption of our TV Signal?
It's an invasion! -
Re:We should embrace china,
HELLO!
What color is the sunrise on your planet??
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ch.html
"Government type: Communist state"
In China the sunrise is RED.... -
Re:where is the PDF?
-
Re:where is the PDF?
-
That's below even your low standards.
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20 030128-23.html Is the Whitehouse a good enough source for you?
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.WMD Report
The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
Actually, if you read the final report, it says that they were effective. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_ Report_Key_Findings.pdf
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion:
#1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US.
#2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US.
#3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US.
#4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form. -
Re:Federal Cost Savings
I think there's a guy in India that'll do it on Rent-a-coder for $20.
-
Very Small Country
While I commend the notion, Iceland has a unique feature not mentioned in the article -- an extremely small population. According to the CIA (spare the check-your-facts comments, thanks), it is currently less than 300,000 people.
To put that into perspective, there are over 1200 CITIES in the world with more that 300,000 people. Seriously, more people live in Toledo than all of Iceland. As far as the Hydrogen economy goes, it's a start, but such a very small start. By 2050 I sure hope we're further along worldwide.
-
Mathematical racismWhat does that tell you?
Absolutely Fucking Nothing!
Let's "look at the numbers", as you advise.
With 1,755,637 sq km ice-covered, it's a lot of ice. Melt that into water and it's a more than a few meters of sea level rise... National Geographic says 7 meters.
Your so-called "institutional racism" is a smoke-screen, it isn't how big Greenland is or isn't compared to somewhere else that matters. What matters is how much ice might melt and the damage that produces in Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangladesh, London, Pacific Islands, and countless other places. -
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (<2%?).
% GDP/US$ spent on defence:
USA: 3.3%, $370.7b
China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b
France: 2.6%, $45b
Germany: 1.5%, $35b
North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b
Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b
Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b
Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b
Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b
Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b
Japan: 1%, $42.4b
UK: 2.4%, $42.8b
Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.
I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would
If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!
As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe
-
Re:Betting that this is false.
GWB didn't lie about WMDs; the media lie about WMDs. What Kay's interim report actually says is rather different than what SeeBS tells you it says.
-
Re:In other news..
According to CIA the GDP per capita in India is 2900$ whereas it is 37800$ in USA
The $2.30 is the same as 29.98$
Is that cheap? -
Re:armageddon
No way do those areas account for 30% of the world's GDP. In fact, doing a little research reveals that if you assume that the wave would totally destroy the economies of all of Great Britian, France, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Spain, New York, Florida, South Africa, New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Portugal, Connecticut, Morocco, South Carolina, Ireland, Washington DC, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, it only accounts for 23% of the world GDP. That's the top 25 jurisdictions that would be affected, and the smallest of those is 0.07% of world GDP.
Once again, that is if all production in all of those areas were totally destroyed, not just the 1-10 miles nearest the coast. In addition, if everyone in all of those areas were killed, it would still only be 10% of the world population.
Admittedly were talking about just over 661 million people, but once again that covers all of Brazil, all of Mexico, all of New York, etc., not just those within whatever arbitrary distance of the coast you want to assign.
So as I said in my first post,
Would it be bad? Yeah. But not a world or humanity ending event.
-
Re:Any magnitude 9 earthquake at sea causes tsunamIf I had known about it in time, 10 of my friends could have called 10 of their friends, and we would have had 100 person-hours of calling. We could have notified hundreds of thousands of people, assuming a little cooperation from the people in the nations we were calling.
And assuming two other things -
- That someone in your your circle for friends actually knows someone in Indonsia or Sri Lanka.
- That anyone in the affected areas has a phone. For example, Sri Lanka has a population of 19 million with less than 2 million phones (mobile and land line combined). In comparison, Ireland has over 5 million phones and less than 4 million people.
-
Re:Any magnitude 9 earthquake at sea causes tsunamIf I had known about it in time, 10 of my friends could have called 10 of their friends, and we would have had 100 person-hours of calling. We could have notified hundreds of thousands of people, assuming a little cooperation from the people in the nations we were calling.
And assuming two other things -
- That someone in your your circle for friends actually knows someone in Indonsia or Sri Lanka.
- That anyone in the affected areas has a phone. For example, Sri Lanka has a population of 19 million with less than 2 million phones (mobile and land line combined). In comparison, Ireland has over 5 million phones and less than 4 million people.
-
U.S. donated about 5 times as much ODA as Norwayhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
/ no.htmlFrom the link you posted one can see that the U.S. donated 6.9 Billion in ODA (Economic Aid - Donor) while Norway donated only 1.4 Billion.
Also, there is this little goody -
Norway exports 3.466 million bbl of oil/day - Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway.
Due to their oil production, Norway is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emmissions on earth, but they don't seem to feel very guilty if you were to judge them on the amount of foreign aid they give. They make ~40 Billion a year selling oil, and they donate a paltry 1.4 Billion?
What does Norway think happens to all the oil they sell - do they think it magically disappears? Why do they continue to supply this greenhouse gas producing liquid?
Norway is world leader per-capita in the production of greenhouse gas precursors!
-
Re:Let's not make fun..
Then why don't you tell that asshat at the UN to quit bitching at the "Western", aka the US, nations for not donating money.
Awww, poor little persecuted American. We're all crying rivers of tears over here.
Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.
Let's look at the figures. With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997. That's a mere $23 per person. You stingy fuckers. Even Australia came in at twice that. And we're all bastards compared to the Norway who contributed a whopping $311 per person in foreign aid in 1998.
Bunch of selfish whiney "me me me" Americans with their non-stop martyr complex. Give me a break.
-
Re:Let's not make fun..
Then why don't you tell that asshat at the UN to quit bitching at the "Western", aka the US, nations for not donating money.
Awww, poor little persecuted American. We're all crying rivers of tears over here.
Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.
Let's look at the figures. With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997. That's a mere $23 per person. You stingy fuckers. Even Australia came in at twice that. And we're all bastards compared to the Norway who contributed a whopping $311 per person in foreign aid in 1998.
Bunch of selfish whiney "me me me" Americans with their non-stop martyr complex. Give me a break.
-
Re:In this thread, we say what we really think...
Saudi Arabia
Well they call themselves an Islamic nation, but conveniently forget parts - it's against Islamic law to do business or take out a loan when interest is involved.
Saudi Arabia is a classic case of a state using religion to distract the public from oppression.
Iran
Not for long.
Their population is mostly young and liberal. Hardline clerical rule will not last.
the not quite yet formed Palistinian state is pretty fundamentalist
"not quite yet formed" is something of an understatement. -
You are an example
With a nation of approximately 1.3 billion inhabitants, the only way that a government wich blatant disregard for human life and decency can actually THRIVE is because all the Chinese hold attitudes like yours -- either through ignorance or stupidity.
-
Re:That's it?
Well, seeing as how freedom costs $1.05 (http://www.teamamerica.com/), and there are appx 293,027,571 people in the united states (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo
s -
Re:If IBM gave two shits about the desktop
Where did those additional 300 million Chinese suddenly come from? The CIA thinks there are only 1.3 Billion! http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
/ ch.html?
I guess The Economist should check the numbers.
-
Re:Global warming?You have a number of assertions unsupported by any documentation or reasoning. For instance:
China is a developing nation in the eyes of the treaty only. They seem awfully industrialized to me (one of my definitions of a developed nation).
CIA Factbook article on China
Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor. GDP - real growth rate: 9.1% (official data) (2004 est.) GDP - per capita: $5,000 (2004 est.)
CIA Factbook article on USA
GDP - real growth rate: 3.1% (2004 est.) GDP - per capita: $37,800 (2004 est.)
The CIA Factbook doesn't seem to have an entry for the EU as a whole, but their GDP per capita appears to be in the ballpark of $20k-$30k and growth rates appear to be in a similar area, small percentages centering around zero.
China is radically behind what we would normally refer to as the "developed world" in per capita GDP and apppears to be growing faster than our economy. That seems to fit a reasonable definition of "developing". -
Re:Global warming?You have a number of assertions unsupported by any documentation or reasoning. For instance:
China is a developing nation in the eyes of the treaty only. They seem awfully industrialized to me (one of my definitions of a developed nation).
CIA Factbook article on China
Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor. GDP - real growth rate: 9.1% (official data) (2004 est.) GDP - per capita: $5,000 (2004 est.)
CIA Factbook article on USA
GDP - real growth rate: 3.1% (2004 est.) GDP - per capita: $37,800 (2004 est.)
The CIA Factbook doesn't seem to have an entry for the EU as a whole, but their GDP per capita appears to be in the ballpark of $20k-$30k and growth rates appear to be in a similar area, small percentages centering around zero.
China is radically behind what we would normally refer to as the "developed world" in per capita GDP and apppears to be growing faster than our economy. That seems to fit a reasonable definition of "developing". -
The Microsoft Story, case in point
In case you haven't heard, Microsoft (MSFT) has been deeply unprofitable since 1996, when it began to rely on holes in the GAAP accounting standards that allowed it to report historic profits in its NASDAQ filings. Large fund managers bought into it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, making MS at its peak ($700B) which for comparison made it the largest component of the S&P 500, the equivalent of the 16th largest country or ~1.5% of the GDP of Earth. Though billed (no pun intended) as a success story, when the bubble burst investors lost billions.
Who cares? The biggest funds involved were pension funds of large social programs across the US, e.g. the California Teachers Union, who automatically invest in S&P components at rates proportional to the components' value. MS paid for its bottom line with those peoples' money, so much so that pensioners are majority owners of MS today. Too bad for them that the bottom fell out of MS stock and their savings are worthless. But it did help create two of the richest personal accounts on Earth.
You could argue that this was all legal and that they won the king of the hill prize. Perhaps. But is it ethical to block GAAP reforms via corporate shills in Congress (e.g. Joe Lieberman) so your huge losses won't be exposed? Enron execs are being hung out to dry for being only slightly on the other side of that thin line in the sand. No, it's likely MS knew what it was up to. As Bill Parish, who broke the story, tells:
"Microsoft's perspective is best reflected by Bob Herbold, Chief Operating Officer, to whom the CFO reports. Bob very sincerely [explained the situation to Gates], "Bill, everyone is doing it.""
This is a great vindication for Bill Parish, and another step towards reigning in widespread corrupt accounting practices. http://freality.org/~pablo/essays/microsoft.html
