Its funny how you term cost in "minor amounts of munitions"
It isn't that funny since I was responding to this line in the post:
if you have a war, you can 'use up' a lot of your war toys and get brand new shiny (more expensive) ones from your Uncle.
------
I agree that the logistics costs are substantial, but no small part of that is piracy by the Pakistanis and the border regions. There is plenty of "highway robberty" both literally and figuratively. That drives up the costs a lot. The US government often prefers to fly in material to Afghanistan rather than risk movement by Pakistani highway.
As to no-bid contracts, they aren't demanded by contractors, but are often a consequence of who can supply the good or service. There is a reason that various contractors were able to pull those down and that is because they were either unique or in a very small club of those able to provide the good or service world-wide in remote regions. Contracting to set up and run a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan, with all the logistics, isn't exactly mom and pop operation.
I'm not going to say that is the best or cheapest way to do it, but there are often other considerations.
As to the security contractors, many of them have been from African nations or other places that made them very cost effective. When it comes to contractors for intelligence or strike missions, that is obviously a different matter. Somebody ran the numbers and decided it was cheaper to hire contractors rather than recruit, train, equip, and deploy new special forces or intelligence units.
In 2012 defense spending was $677.8 billion, and should be falling from there due to cuts and sequestration. US participation in the war in Iraq is over, and Afghanistan will be winding down next year. Even if intelligence weren't counted in that we know the budget is about $90 billion, so it is well under $1T whereas Federal spending is more than $3.5T. In 2013 defense spending should be about 4% of GDP. If you examine this chart you will see that there are many sectors of the economy that are equal to or larger than 4%. And note that the long term trend for defense spending is downward as a percentage of GDP.
And as a correction, healthcare is approximately 17.6% of GDP, not 11%. That makes it roughly equal to 4x the size of defense spending at present.
As far as South Korea goes, US defense spending is about equal to the GDP of Florida, not much more than that of Illinois or Pennsylvania, and well under that of Texas, California, and New York. Many US states are the size of foreign countries in both area and population.
It is also worth remembering that defense spending is a composite of spending on many different goods and services, such as civilian and military salaries and benefits, construction, equipment, land, food, petroleum, ammunition, spare parts, weapons and equipment, services of many types, and so on, involving many different companies.
The bottom line is that it is ridiculous to think that the US would go to war based on the advocacy of any single company, or even the defense industry.
Facts and counter-arguments would be preferable, if the facts were in your favor. But I agree with you, derision of my posts is all you've got left to fall back on in most cases.
I wasn't referring to rights, but to values. But perhaps you don't share those democratic values, or more likely you're simply confused - a common condition here.
Frankly, I'm glad I'm in my 60s, and not a young'un anymore, as I don't want to see where this country will be in 10-20 years.....
If you're only in your 60s the country can't afford for you to die any time soon. The country will need you to help pay for Obamacare, especially for the really old and sick, and you aren't there yet. It isn't the NSA that is going to screw the country over, it is Obamacare and the other "fine" work the administration is up to. There is still at least three more years of sand in the gears and sugar in the gas tank to look forward to, not to mention the IRS will be starting enforcement of Obamacare next year. If you are going to die it should probably be either this month, or put off for 20 years.
At least, that had better be the story. Because anything else is just a bunch of rich kids whining that they've been outed (and treated poorly). They weren't slaves, prisoners or compelled to remain.
That actually cuts both ways. Most of the complaints you read here, to use your phrase, are just a bunch of rich kids whining that they've been treated poorly.
You don't seem to be letting your lack of understanding about the situation inhibit your posting though.
I salute your commitment to the democratic values of free, fair, and open debate, and opposition to censorship. We all benefit from a free and open exchange of ideas, views, and supporting evidence.
Although overall that was a very enjoyable film, that particular section is an unserious polemic consistent with the fawning over Chomsky* in the film.
As to your comment about nothing changing in the last 15 years, do you mean terrorists trying to attack the US? I'll guess not, I'm not sure that concern is one you'd have even though Bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war against the US the year before it came out and attacked two US embassies in Africa causing a large loss of life and limb the year after.
* There's a certain irony in this since the monologue is regarding a purely rhetorical bombing of a village whereas Chomsky was a denier of the Cambodian genocide and associated with Holocaust deniers.
Especially since they were spying leaders all around the world, and that seems hardly related to terrorism prevention. Or did they actually believe that Angela Merkel could have wanted to place a weapon of mass destruction in New York subway system?
That is a strawman argument. There are other reasons to engage in intelligence operations against foreign leaders than terrorism.
China and much of the world, at least until recently, have relied on conscription to fill their armies and paid them meager wages consistent with that staffing model. The US has an all volunteer military that pays wages competitive with the civilian market. A US corporal is paid about the same as a Chinese general. The same thing goes for weapons procurement. China pays Chinese costs, typically buying from Chinese state owned factories. The US military buys mainly from the US and Europe. Also don't overlook the fact that the US is picking up the slack for European nations that aren't holding up their end of the NATO treaty in terms of defense spending.
Sorry, but that is a load of bull. The present low level conflicts are using minor amounts of munitions. On top of that the so called "military industrial complex" is a tiny part of the economy that is dwarfed by many other sectors. Even then it is shrinking due to budget cuts and sequestration. As a tail they don't have the power to wag the dog.
In this case China is clearly following precedent set by the United States.
The Chinese communist government requires no lessons from anybody on how to play rough these days. When they were interested on the insights from others years ago they had the communist Soviet government to mentor them.
Bush was president, but he's been long gone, I suggest moving on. The Chinese were difficult long before he was in office. Ask the Vietnamese, the Chinese invaded them after being an ally during the Vietnam War. The US also fought them in the Korean War.
Sorry, but at least half of that or more is baloney.
Saddam and Iraq were quite open about supporting terrorism, they just had little to do with al Qaida. Have you heard of Abu Nidal? He was once the most wanted man in the world, and Iraq gave him and his organization refuge. Iraq paid bounties for suicide bombers. Iraq trained terrorists. They were very much involved with it over the years.
Your claims about WMD are also off base. The only reason the Iraqis didn't still have WMD was because after they had successfully fooled the inspectors for years they secretly disposed of their remaining ones - mainly VX nerve gas IIRC, which they had denied ever having. Saddam then had the Iraqi state act as if it still did have something to hid to fool Iran. He figured that Iran would be fooled and the West wouldn't have the resolve to take action. That error in judgment led to his undoing.
Iraq was a slaughter ground for al Qaida, and cost them dearly in terms of support in the Muslim world. Once other Muslims in the region got to see up close how al Qaida behaved in areas it controlled in Iraq, their support plummeted. They lost a lot of men, material, money, and supporting networks. It gave them a huge black eye and they had to flee. Why do you think Afghanistan started heating up again? No small part of that was al Qaida fleeing Iraq with many of them going to Afghanistan and the surrounding region.
And lets not forget the totally corrupt "Oil for Food" program that Saddam was diverting funds from to buy weapons, build dozens of palaces, and bribe diplomats and governments around the world to work his way out of sanctions. It was gradually working and it seems clear that Saddam would have resumed his quest to rearm with WMDs after working his way clear from sanctions.
You might be surprised to learn that they've added new weapons and tuned existing ones to pretty much take that scenario off the table. If it isn't covered yet, it will be soon. It is a dynamnic process.
Your previous answer and this one are largely nonsense. Nations aren't people, and the ethics that guide us individually aren't necessarily appropriate guidance for the use of the power of a state. Do you personally imprison people? Or tax them? Why not, the state does it? Could it be that you don't have the power to do that, and it isn't appropriate for you to do so? The same thing goes with spying on foreign powers. The state has to do things that you don't.
You hide intelligence operations so they succeed, and the other side doesn't know what you know, and what you don't. That way they don't know your weakness.
Your ideas on this are both faulty and contrary to the long experience of American and other intelligence agencies. I'm sure your ideas have a source, but whatever it is doesn't seem to be a reliable guide to good intelligence practices.
Don't look now... but theres nothing the US can do to stop them.
Depends on what it is that needs to be stopped, how badly China wants to do it, and how badly the US wants to stop it. If all that is going on are speeches and radar beams, there isn't much to stop. If China starts sending fighters or missiles into the area, there are things that could be done.
The US plans on keeping 11 carrier strike groups around, for the moment. It is doubtful they would or could all be deployed simultaneously, but even 1 is nothing to sneeze at. China has a variety of things they could try against them, but it is uncertain how effective they would be.
The possibility of miscalculation leading to war is non-trivial if China keeps ratcheting up their aggression.
Not at all. I have no idea about your personal characteristics, which is why it is indeterminate. For all I know you could be rail thin but suffer from personal distress due to a secret currywurst obsession. Perhaps you leave your apartment each day to search high and low for the elusive perfect currywurst, the one with just the right sausage and sauce to give you a taste of what you imagine heaven could be like, and yet you loath your powerlessness over the habit. Or not.
Some +1 Funny mods do wonders for ones karma, which comes in handy when making controversial positions in more serious exchanges.
Perhaps it changed, but my recollection from reading the FAQ or some other document on Slashdot was that +1 Funny doesn't actually help your karma. That leaves something of a puzzle as to why I would make humorous posts.
I will also note that my named account is getting close to 10 years old, I have a long posting history, and Snowden's misdeeds only came to light about 6 months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Its funny how you term cost in "minor amounts of munitions"
It isn't that funny since I was responding to this line in the post:
if you have a war, you can 'use up' a lot of your war toys and get brand new shiny (more expensive) ones from your Uncle.
------
I agree that the logistics costs are substantial, but no small part of that is piracy by the Pakistanis and the border regions. There is plenty of "highway robberty" both literally and figuratively. That drives up the costs a lot. The US government often prefers to fly in material to Afghanistan rather than risk movement by Pakistani highway.
As to no-bid contracts, they aren't demanded by contractors, but are often a consequence of who can supply the good or service. There is a reason that various contractors were able to pull those down and that is because they were either unique or in a very small club of those able to provide the good or service world-wide in remote regions. Contracting to set up and run a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan, with all the logistics, isn't exactly mom and pop operation.
I'm not going to say that is the best or cheapest way to do it, but there are often other considerations.
As to the security contractors, many of them have been from African nations or other places that made them very cost effective. When it comes to contractors for intelligence or strike missions, that is obviously a different matter. Somebody ran the numbers and decided it was cheaper to hire contractors rather than recruit, train, equip, and deploy new special forces or intelligence units.
Except you don't have any facts, fuck head. I've read your posts and they all amount to "No it's not!"....
Why don't you do a little more reading. (There are others you could read, but that will be a good place to start.)
Sorry, but that is simply wrong.
In 2012 defense spending was $677.8 billion, and should be falling from there due to cuts and sequestration. US participation in the war in Iraq is over, and Afghanistan will be winding down next year. Even if intelligence weren't counted in that we know the budget is about $90 billion, so it is well under $1T whereas Federal spending is more than $3.5T. In 2013 defense spending should be about 4% of GDP. If you examine this chart you will see that there are many sectors of the economy that are equal to or larger than 4%. And note that the long term trend for defense spending is downward as a percentage of GDP.
And as a correction, healthcare is approximately 17.6% of GDP, not 11%. That makes it roughly equal to 4x the size of defense spending at present.
As far as South Korea goes, US defense spending is about equal to the GDP of Florida, not much more than that of Illinois or Pennsylvania, and well under that of Texas, California, and New York. Many US states are the size of foreign countries in both area and population.
It is also worth remembering that defense spending is a composite of spending on many different goods and services, such as civilian and military salaries and benefits, construction, equipment, land, food, petroleum, ammunition, spare parts, weapons and equipment, services of many types, and so on, involving many different companies.
The bottom line is that it is ridiculous to think that the US would go to war based on the advocacy of any single company, or even the defense industry.
Facts and counter-arguments would be preferable, if the facts were in your favor. But I agree with you, derision of my posts is all you've got left to fall back on in most cases.
After carefully reading your post I have noted a distinct lack of counter-arguments or facts other than a trollish acknowledgement of my post.
I'll take that as acquiescence to my arguments. Thanks dude!
I wasn't referring to rights, but to values. But perhaps you don't share those democratic values, or more likely you're simply confused - a common condition here.
Here's a nickel - try again.
Frankly, I'm glad I'm in my 60s, and not a young'un anymore, as I don't want to see where this country will be in 10-20 years.....
If you're only in your 60s the country can't afford for you to die any time soon. The country will need you to help pay for Obamacare, especially for the really old and sick, and you aren't there yet. It isn't the NSA that is going to screw the country over, it is Obamacare and the other "fine" work the administration is up to. There is still at least three more years of sand in the gears and sugar in the gas tank to look forward to, not to mention the IRS will be starting enforcement of Obamacare next year. If you are going to die it should probably be either this month, or put off for 20 years.
At least, that had better be the story. Because anything else is just a bunch of rich kids whining that they've been outed (and treated poorly). They weren't slaves, prisoners or compelled to remain.
That actually cuts both ways. Most of the complaints you read here, to use your phrase, are just a bunch of rich kids whining that they've been treated poorly.
You don't seem to be letting your lack of understanding about the situation inhibit your posting though.
I salute your commitment to the democratic values of free, fair, and open debate, and opposition to censorship. We all benefit from a free and open exchange of ideas, views, and supporting evidence.
No, I'm saying the US isn't a third world nation and is picking up the slack of other first world nations. Please pay attention.
Although overall that was a very enjoyable film, that particular section is an unserious polemic consistent with the fawning over Chomsky* in the film.
As to your comment about nothing changing in the last 15 years, do you mean terrorists trying to attack the US? I'll guess not, I'm not sure that concern is one you'd have even though Bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war against the US the year before it came out and attacked two US embassies in Africa causing a large loss of life and limb the year after.
* There's a certain irony in this since the monologue is regarding a purely rhetorical bombing of a village whereas Chomsky was a denier of the Cambodian genocide and associated with Holocaust deniers.
Especially since they were spying leaders all around the world, and that seems hardly related to terrorism prevention.
Or did they actually believe that Angela Merkel could have wanted to place a weapon of mass destruction in New York subway system?
That is a strawman argument. There are other reasons to engage in intelligence operations against foreign leaders than terrorism.
You realize the NSA could be controlling US politics right now like J Edgar Hoover and we'd have no clue?
There is about a 0% chance that would be kept quiet if it was attempted.
And you're confused about the "power" of the NSA, it certainly isn't "absolute."
China and much of the world, at least until recently, have relied on conscription to fill their armies and paid them meager wages consistent with that staffing model. The US has an all volunteer military that pays wages competitive with the civilian market. A US corporal is paid about the same as a Chinese general. The same thing goes for weapons procurement. China pays Chinese costs, typically buying from Chinese state owned factories. The US military buys mainly from the US and Europe. Also don't overlook the fact that the US is picking up the slack for European nations that aren't holding up their end of the NATO treaty in terms of defense spending.
Sorry, but that is a load of bull. The present low level conflicts are using minor amounts of munitions. On top of that the so called "military industrial complex" is a tiny part of the economy that is dwarfed by many other sectors. Even then it is shrinking due to budget cuts and sequestration. As a tail they don't have the power to wag the dog.
In this case China is clearly following precedent set by the United States.
The Chinese communist government requires no lessons from anybody on how to play rough these days. When they were interested on the insights from others years ago they had the communist Soviet government to mentor them.
Bush was president, but he's been long gone, I suggest moving on. The Chinese were difficult long before he was in office. Ask the Vietnamese, the Chinese invaded them after being an ally during the Vietnam War. The US also fought them in the Korean War.
Actually his post contained considerable nonsense as I point out in my other post in this subthread.
As to your link, I suggest that anyone that reads it pays careful attention to the British inquiries section.
They may also want to do some follow up reading, or maybe even start here first:
About that 500 tons of yellow cake...
Case Closed - The truth about the Iraqi-Niger "yellowcake" nexus.
Sorry, but at least half of that or more is baloney.
Saddam and Iraq were quite open about supporting terrorism, they just had little to do with al Qaida. Have you heard of Abu Nidal? He was once the most wanted man in the world, and Iraq gave him and his organization refuge. Iraq paid bounties for suicide bombers. Iraq trained terrorists. They were very much involved with it over the years.
Your claims about WMD are also off base. The only reason the Iraqis didn't still have WMD was because after they had successfully fooled the inspectors for years they secretly disposed of their remaining ones - mainly VX nerve gas IIRC, which they had denied ever having. Saddam then had the Iraqi state act as if it still did have something to hid to fool Iran. He figured that Iran would be fooled and the West wouldn't have the resolve to take action. That error in judgment led to his undoing.
Iraq was a slaughter ground for al Qaida, and cost them dearly in terms of support in the Muslim world. Once other Muslims in the region got to see up close how al Qaida behaved in areas it controlled in Iraq, their support plummeted. They lost a lot of men, material, money, and supporting networks. It gave them a huge black eye and they had to flee. Why do you think Afghanistan started heating up again? No small part of that was al Qaida fleeing Iraq with many of them going to Afghanistan and the surrounding region.
And lets not forget the totally corrupt "Oil for Food" program that Saddam was diverting funds from to buy weapons, build dozens of palaces, and bribe diplomats and governments around the world to work his way out of sanctions. It was gradually working and it seems clear that Saddam would have resumed his quest to rearm with WMDs after working his way clear from sanctions.
You might be surprised to learn that they've added new weapons and tuned existing ones to pretty much take that scenario off the table. If it isn't covered yet, it will be soon. It is a dynamnic process.
Your previous answer and this one are largely nonsense. Nations aren't people, and the ethics that guide us individually aren't necessarily appropriate guidance for the use of the power of a state. Do you personally imprison people? Or tax them? Why not, the state does it? Could it be that you don't have the power to do that, and it isn't appropriate for you to do so? The same thing goes with spying on foreign powers. The state has to do things that you don't.
You hide intelligence operations so they succeed, and the other side doesn't know what you know, and what you don't. That way they don't know your weakness.
Your ideas on this are both faulty and contrary to the long experience of American and other intelligence agencies. I'm sure your ideas have a source, but whatever it is doesn't seem to be a reliable guide to good intelligence practices.
Don't look now ... but theres nothing the US can do to stop them.
Depends on what it is that needs to be stopped, how badly China wants to do it, and how badly the US wants to stop it. If all that is going on are speeches and radar beams, there isn't much to stop. If China starts sending fighters or missiles into the area, there are things that could be done.
The US plans on keeping 11 carrier strike groups around, for the moment. It is doubtful they would or could all be deployed simultaneously, but even 1 is nothing to sneeze at. China has a variety of things they could try against them, but it is uncertain how effective they would be.
The possibility of miscalculation leading to war is non-trivial if China keeps ratcheting up their aggression.
Maybe, maybe not.
US, Japan agree to revise mutual defense treaty for first time in 16 years
Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty
That was gracious of you. I'm honored.
Wait, are you suggesting I'm fat? Nicely played.
Not at all. I have no idea about your personal characteristics, which is why it is indeterminate. For all I know you could be rail thin but suffer from personal distress due to a secret currywurst obsession. Perhaps you leave your apartment each day to search high and low for the elusive perfect currywurst, the one with just the right sausage and sauce to give you a taste of what you imagine heaven could be like, and yet you loath your powerlessness over the habit. Or not.
Some +1 Funny mods do wonders for ones karma, which comes in handy when making controversial positions in more serious exchanges.
Perhaps it changed, but my recollection from reading the FAQ or some other document on Slashdot was that +1 Funny doesn't actually help your karma. That leaves something of a puzzle as to why I would make humorous posts.
I will also note that my named account is getting close to 10 years old, I have a long posting history, and Snowden's misdeeds only came to light about 6 months ago.
MongoDB only pawn in game of politics.