Ok, so the US is the most powerful military power on Earth right?

KFulch · Sep 13, 2002

I have always been a US citizen, and would not have it any other way. I agree; the health insurance avail. in the US is a joke & it is a shame that in MOST areas educators are making barely enough money to get by in life;

RideMonkey · Sep 13, 2002

Its all about % GNP.

The Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of excessive military spending that was somewhere in the 20-25% GNP range.

The US only spent in the area of 3% of the total GNP of the US. Political leaders knew it was only a matter of time before the Soviets ran outta cash.

So yeah, we spend a lot. But it seems we have an economy that can support that kind of spending.

Toshi · Sep 13, 2002

I've come to believe that the public is stupid and bloodthirsty. Politicians realize this, so we stumble into wars rather than increasing the standard of living. Marginally improving the life of some schmuck on the street won't make Joe Sixpack vote for the incumbent president... :rolleyes:

(Of course, this only applies to the last few decades -- I don't question our involvement in WWI or II.)

Joe Pozer · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by MMike
But why sacrifice standard of living for it? Would rather have JSF's, or only have to spend $2000/year for college tuition?

I think a lot of that has to do with our mindset. In order to create affordable college tuitions taxes would have to be raised and I think you know how that would turn out. Even if we cut military spending, it would not be nearly enough to help Joe Schmoe get a college education.

It's a matter of were you were raised I guess. If you were raised in a socialist country you probably wouldn't have a problem giving 50 or 60% of you wages to the govt. but most people in this country would revolt (meaning they would vote out anybody who was in office).

-BB- · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by MMike
No-one disputes that.

So... why do you suppose that is? Well, because unspeakable amounts of money were thrown at it to make it so. Right? Right!

So now there's a big advanced military but I can't help but wonder: at the expense of what?

Everyone mocks the Canadian military. "hu hu huhu You're warships are canoes! hu hu hu.." Yes. That's very funny. But yeah, "we" chose to spend money on other stuff like social programs. It is a well known fact (outside the US anyway) that the US does not have the highest standard of living in the world.

Education is not as accessible here (US). Medical insurance is a joke. etc... etc... I've gone on these tirades before I guess. Would all the money spent on developing smart bobs and JSF's have been better spent on improving the quality of life of the people in the country? I kinda think so. There are those that argue that creating these machines helps the economy because it creates jobs etc.... I dunno. It creates job for a very small number of people.

The other side of the coin though is that if the sh!t does hit the fan, it's nice to have an unbeatable army.

I dunno. I still think that rather than having a military that is 1000 times more powerful than anyone else, it could still have a military that is 100 times more powerful than everyone else and use the extra money more porductively.

Mmike... IMO, the only reason that a lot of these other countries (ie Canada) CAN afford to spend money on things besides teh millitary is because the US DOES. If anyone ever gets attacked (besides Iraq, Syria, Iran, and a few others...)
WHO IS GONNA COME BAIL THEM OUT?

Canada?
Nope... the US.

(yes, I know Canada does lend support to some of the UN multi national forces, but not much)

Does this make any of it "right" or "wrong"
Na. Probably not.

Some people spend money on Bikes... some on clothes and electornics... and some on BEER.

Joe Pozer · Sep 13, 2002

I would like to know what the Life Expectancy in other countries is compared to the US. I just read that it hit an all-time high to 77 years. Does anybody have any stats on how that compares to the other industrial nations?

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

Yeah, we spend a buttload of money on defense. But it is less than 5% of our GDP. We have, with that money purchased a very tangible product for ourselves and the rest of the world. When was the last time a "missile drill" took place in a public school? Remember the Berlin wall coming down?

There is no longer a USSR, and China has such an internal load on its infrastructure that it can no longer be considerd an over-the-horizon threat. The original three "superpowers" had missiles in common. But what put the other guys out of business as a threat was the fact that we were able to develop a logistical infrastructure to allow us to put 1 million men anywhere in the world within 72 hours. That cost a ton. But the reward is priceless.

The name "United States Military" is something of a misnomer. We really ought to call it, "Free World Defense Force, a United States of America production."

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

...are you buying a Sea-Doo?

I think you should.

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by -BB-

Mmike... IMO, the only reason that a lot of these other countries (ie Canada) CAN afford to spend money on things besides teh millitary is because the US DOES. If anyone ever gets attacked (besides Iraq, Syria, Iran, and a few others...)
WHO IS GONNA COME BAIL THEM OUT?

Canada?
Nope... the US.

(yes, I know Canada does lend support to some of the UN multi national forces, but not much)

Does this make any of it "right" or "wrong"
Na. Probably not.

Some people spend money on Bikes... some on clothes and electornics... and some on BEER.

Careful there buddy, you are starting to sound vaugely.........Republican. Maybe this marriage thing has you settling down, getting more conservative. Lol

-BB- · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by Damn True

Careful there buddy, you are starting to sound vaugely.........Republican. Maybe this marriage thing has you settling down, getting more conservative. Lol

I did NOT say that I agreed with it though.
One side effect is that it gets us undue attention.
*Cough 9/11 COUGH*

KrusteeButt · Sep 13, 2002

I agree with a lot of the points here. BB brings up some very valid points...very true that the US seems to have the reputation as the "Police of the World" not only because of how we stick our noses in everything, but also be most of the rest of the world expects us to. Look at all of the UN military involvement over the past couple decades...almost always 80% (or more) United States military.
And we also are a major target...all the little guys want to knock us down. Our military really does need to be that much stronger...we may be 1000x bigger than the average army. But what happens when a few little guys team up? And we get ZERO support from any other country...we're on our own. Our military needs to be the size that it is in order to preserve the way of life which we all take for granted.

Yeah, I know our educational system isn't as good as many other countries' systems. Nor our health system. But we have many other freedoms and liberties that other countries do not.

Have you seen that commercial that just came out? A kid goes to the library to check out books but can't find 'em...he goes to the desk to ask about 'em and the lady tells him those books are no longer available...then says she needs his name...he refuses and walks away, and next thing you know he's apprehended. That seems like it's pretty far-fetched, but that's because we've never had to worry about that. Stuff like that really does happen in other worlds.

Freak · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by MMike

How did "everyone" grow hate the US so quickly?

Yea!!! Why do you hate us so much!!!???? :rolleyes:

KrusteeButt · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by MMike

Here's a quesiton: what do you suppose came first? When did the US become a target? People hate the Sates, so we'd better beef up the military of we'll get our asses kicked? Or was it "We're gonna build the baddest ass military in history", and then people later found it off-putting?

Now that I'm thinking about it,what DID come first. If you go back to confederation, ok you were fighting the british. That ended. Then what? I mean the country is not THAT old. How did "everyone" grow hate the US so quickly?

Well, I'd have to do a bit of quality research to really come up with an educated opinion there. Regardless of what came first, the fact is, we are a target now. Sure, it's possible that our "leaders" may have brought this upon the country...that's a whole different can of worms...but now we have to deal with it, and I do, in fact, think that a military of our country's size is, to some extent, necessary.

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by MMike
Because you guys can't frickin' drive.........

Super funny reply, made even funnier by the fact that you are from Montreal!

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by MMike

.....where people drive properly.

Riiiiiiiight.

Tenaciousle0 · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by Damn True

Riiiiiiiight.

All the Canadians driving on the highways near me are dangerous.
I guess they don't understand the difference between 70 mph and 70 kph, or maybe it's the fact that our signs aren't translated in french. Ahh, whatever just stay away from me with your filthy astro vans.

Toshi · Sep 13, 2002

This certainly isn't an educated opinion, but my guess is that the vast majority of those who hate us now started hating us (and the rest of the western powers) around the turn of the century -- 1900, that is -- when we carved up the middle east into artificial kingdoms to ensure our supply of oil would remain protected. Supporting Israel's formation after promising a Palestinian state decades before, but reneging upon that promise, in 1947 (I think, might be wrong on the date) was the final straw that has led us down the path we tread upon today, for better or for worse.

Tenaciousle0 · Sep 13, 2002

I think the real reason that most of these countries hate us; is that they are jealous. Whatever philosiphy they follow, socialism, comunism, Islamic theocracy, pales in comparison to US democracy. We are richer, cleaner, and basically happier than everyone else. Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I'm correct, or both

KrusteeButt · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by Toshi
This certainly isn't an educated opinion, but my guess is that the vast majority of those who hate us now started hating us (and the rest of the western powers) around the turn of the century -- 1900, that is -- when we carved up the middle east into artificial kingdoms to ensure our supply of oil would remain protected. Supporting Israel's formation after promising a Palestinian state decades before, but reneging upon that promise, in 1947 (I think, might be wrong on the date) was the final straw that has led us down the path we tread upon today, for better or for worse.

However, as I recall that was all done by the British government, not the United States.

Tenaciousle0 · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by KrusteeButt

However, as I recall that was all done by the British government, not the United States.

We may have influenced some of the regimes *cough shah of Iran cough* but the carving was all done by the colonial powers

slein · Sep 13, 2002

the CANADIAN methodology on war is that war is chaos, and we practice that on a daily basis. if we don't know what we are doing, then the enemy surely can't anticipate our next move. we have doctrine, but choose not to follow it. we have manuals, but we don't follow them either.

the US methodology on war is blow the sh@t out of everything, and see what's left. a smaller military moves faster, but when the ground is taken before the US gets there, then the US gets mad and even. KABOOOM.

the CDN military cross-trains. you are a soldier first, and then you have your trade. the US military: your trade is your only purpose in life. one dude's occupation is to change tires, and that's it. anyone in a tank crew can do anything in that CDN tank. US: lots of tanks, lots of drivers, lots of gunners... so why should a gunner know how to drive a tank???

as for montreal drivers: its worse all over quebec. you can't turn right on a red light, but you can go straight through it!!!

Joe Pozer · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by KrusteeButt

However, as I recall that was all done by the British government, not the United States.

I believe you are correct...the colonial powers of the early 20th century were the one most responsible for dividing the territories. Also, I believe that even if we help create a Palestinian state we would still be hated in the Middle East because of our support for Israel.

Tenaciousle0 · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by slein
the CANADIAN methodology on war is that war is chaos, and we practice that on a daily basis. if we don't know what we are doing, then the enemy surely can't anticipate our next move. we have doctrine, but choose not to follow it. we have manuals, but we don't follow them either.

the US methodology on war is blow the sh@t out of everything, and see what's left. a smaller military moves faster, but when the ground is taken before the US gets there, then the US gets mad and even. KABOOOM.

the CDN military cross-trains. you are a soldier first, and then you have your trade. the US military: your trade is your only purpose in life. one dude's occupation is to change tires, and that's it. anyone in a tank crew can do anything in that CDN tank. US: lots of tanks, lots of drivers, lots of gunners... so why should a gunner know how to drive a tank???

Oh NO !!!! It's the Canadian chaos forces, run for your life

The regular U.S forces are highly compartmentalized(ooh big word), but our special forces are much more versatile, they can drive tanks, shoot tanks and build tanks out of 4 tin cans and a baked potato

KrusteeButt · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by Joe Pozer

I believe you are correct...the colonial powers of the early 20th century were the one most responsible for dividing the territories. Also, I believe that even if we help create a Palestinian state we would still be hated in the Middle East because of our support for Israel.

This is what I found at the United Nations website.

1917-1947
The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant .
All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".
During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.

1947-1977
After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized. One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.
In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.
In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.

1977-1990
Events on the ground, however, remained on a negative course. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.
In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, which was widely attended, adopted inter alia the Geneva Declaration containing the following principles: the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.
In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population.

The Peace Process
A Peace Conference on the Middle East was convened in Madrid on 30 October 1991, with the aim of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement through direct negotiations along 2 tracks: between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians, based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) (the "land for peace" formula). A series of subsequent negotiations culminated in the mutual recognition between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian People, and the signing by the two parties of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements in Washington, D.C., on 13 September 1993, as well as the subsequent implementation agreements, which led to several other positive developments, such as the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, the elections to the Palestinian Council and the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, the partial release of prisoners and the establishment of a functioning administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule. The involvement of the United Nations has been essential to the peace process, both as the guardian of international legitimacy and in the mobilization and provision of international assistance.
The UN General Assembly welcomed the Declaration of Principles as an important step forward. The Assembly also reaffirmed that "the United Nations has a permanent responsibility with respect to the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy."
During the past years, there has been increasing concern at the stalemate in the peace negotiations. The General Assembly, particularly the Assemblys Tenth Emergency Special Session, was called upon to deal with the deteriorating situation in the occupied Palestinian territory. There has been increasing alarm at acts of violence against civilians, the position and actions of the Government of Israel with regard to Jerusalem, the expansion of settlements, land confiscation and punitive collective measures which were seriously undermining the peace efforts.

KrusteeButt · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by slein
the CDN military cross-trains. you are a soldier first, and then you have your trade. the US military: your trade is your only purpose in life. one dude's occupation is to change tires, and that's it. anyone in a tank crew can do anything in that CDN tank. US: lots of tanks, lots of drivers, lots of gunners... so why should a gunner know how to drive a tank???

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure our resident special forces member, Ranger, would disagree with you. The military has specialists, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing they can do.

slein · Sep 13, 2002

we send CANADIANs on the RANGER course. we kick ass at that course too. i know a few soldiers that have won that kewl award.

yes, the US has specfor that are cross-trained. we have that too... but is the entire military, not a select few.

CANADIAN communications are better too. we are the world's first digital army. that's kewl.

the US still uses vacuum tubes (propoganda)

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by slein
we send CANADIANs on the RANGER course. we kick ass at that course too. i know a few soldiers that have won that kewl award.

yes, the US has specfor that are cross-trained. we have that too... but is the entire military, not a select few.

CANADIAN communications are better too. we are the world's first digital army. that's kewl.

the US still uses vacuum tubes (propoganda)

Canadians do go to US Army Ranger School.
Canadians have competed in the "Best Ranger" comp.
I am about 99% sure that only one non-US Army team has ever won. They were US Marines.

Tenaciousle0 · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by Damn True

Canadians do go to US Army Ranger School.
Canadians have competed in the "Best Ranger" comp.
I am about 99% sure that only one non-US Army team has ever won. They were US Marines.

You are absolutely correct.
slein, why don't you try to get your facts straight before you post something like this

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

....and all Soldiers and Marines recieve basic infantry training. In the Army and the Marines you are a Soldier or Marine first and a "X" second.

I spent my time in the US Coast Guard.
2.5 years aboard a ship
Aviation training.
8.5 years as an Aviator. During which time I was deployed aboard ship for over three years.

I flew of course, but I also maintained the helos- engines, drivetrain, rotor system, hydraulics, flight controls, airframe, composite repair, electrical generation and distribution, landing gear etc etc, managed other mechs, wrote and presented training to new mechs, trained new aviators, trained foreign aviators, took part in drug enforcement missions, enforcement of fisheries laws, aids to navigation, immigration enforcement, enforcement of the embargo against Iraq............Specialized? I wish.

slein · Sep 13, 2002

i was talking about RANGER SKULE (sic). i didn't mention anything about RANGER COMP.

my facts are straight. it is you that can not understand what i wrote.

i can't remember the name of the award. this award is not awarded at every course, or it can have multiple recipients on one course.

its named after some dude. he wasn't CANADIAN, but probably drank our beer back in the day.

Damn True · Sep 13, 2002

Originally posted by Tenaciousle0

I didn't know you are a Coast Gaurd vet, DT. Ever shot any drug dealers?

Not something to joke about. Or even talk about in a forum like this.

Serial Midget · Sep 13, 2002

Wow, I never really think of Canada as having an army - I suppose they must but you never hear too much about them. Sort of like Mexico - what do you know about the Mexican army?

I do know that it takes money, lots and lots of money, to blow people up from a distance that negates return fire.

Does Canada have a large army or is it just symbolic?

Ok, so the US is the most powerful military power on Earth right?

A fowl peckerwood.

Chimp

RideMonkey

Guest

Harbinger of Doom

A fowl peckerwood.

A fowl peckerwood.

A fowl peckerwood.

Mullet Head

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo

Mullet Head

Monkey Pimp

A fowl peckerwood.

Monkey Pimp

Monkey Pimp

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo

I can't believe its not butter!

A fowl peckerwood.

...............................................

I can't believe its not butter!

A fowl peckerwood.

Monkey Pimp

A fowl peckerwood.

Monkey Pimp

Tenaciousle0

Guest

Harbinger of Doom

Tenaciousle0

Guest

I can't believe its not butter!

Tenaciousle0

Guest

Monkey

Mullet Head

Tenaciousle0

Guest

I can't believe its not butter!

I can't believe its not butter!

Monkey

Monkey Pimp

Tenaciousle0

Guest

Monkey Pimp

Monkey

Monkey Pimp

Al Bundy