Canadian army....

[BreakABone]

Reminds me of a quote from HIMYM,

She got married in Canada.
Lily: Yeah, like their money and army, nobody takes it serious.

[Dyne]

Wow, so when people say the US spent 3 trillion on the Missile Defense System over the years, they're not joking.

Good god.

[Professor S]

There is no need to arm yourself when you have a friendly neighbor who is armed to the teeth and openly protected your borders for 40 years. This is not meant as a purjorative, because if I were Canada I'd take advantage of that happy coincidence as well. The US also protects most of the world's trade routes as well.

But while the Canadian military is small, from what I've heard they are very well trained, not unlike the British military.

[Ric]

Look at these figures seriously.

With the world in economic meltdown is it right for the US to still be spending over half of its countries wealth each year on it's military. Do they even really need it? Whilst millions suffer in poverty as a result.

I think youll find the figures for Britain are incorrect. I live along the same stretch of ocean as the largest naval base in the country and they just got a whole bunch of new boats. That must have cost a bit. Mind you, we dont need to spend so much. Were better at using what we have already got.

A friend of mine is a Royal Marine. On recent shore leave he was with a group of americans. One of them carried a card, given out by his commanding officer. On the front it said 'Do Not Drink, Fight or Gamble With The British' and on the back it said 'Because You Will Loose' I found this very amusing.

What is the point of a country having the largest army if they dont use it effectively? In WW2 the canadians were with us from day 1. We had to wait years for the yanks to get on board. Largely due to Nazi sympathisers living in the U.S. Dont forget there was a national vote in U.S history as to wether the predominant language of the country should be German or English. George W Bushes grandfather provided Nazi germany with a third of the Iron and steel they needed to wage world war, fact!

Anyway I am going off topic. The main point I want to raise is, can the US army justify this spending? With more and more becoming uneployed and loosing their livlihoods every day. We are the ones who will suffer the fallout of this economic disaster us and our children. It could all be solved with a simple fix. Cut military spending by 50%.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Ric

Look at these figures seriously.

With the world in economic meltdown is it right for the US to still be spending over half of its countries wealth each year on it's military. Do they even really need it? Whilst millions suffer in poverty as a result.

So the American military is responsible for world poverty? And by the way the US publicly and privately donates more money to figt world hunger than any other country in the world, as also is the largest contributor to the UN's fight against pverty and world hunger as well.

I think youll find the figures for Britain are incorrect. I live along the same stretch of ocean as the largest naval base in the country and they just got a whole bunch of new boats. That must have cost a bit. Mind you, we dont need to spend so much. Were better at using what we have already got.

So you're evidence to disprove these numbers is the fact you saw some new boats? I think your personal objection to military spending are tainting your objectivity on this subject.

What is the point of a country having the largest army if they dont use it effectively? In WW2 the canadians were with us from day 1. We had to wait years for the yanks to get on board. Largely due to Nazi sympathisers living in the U.S. Dont forget there was a national vote in U.S history as to wether the predominant language of the country should be German or English. George W Bushes grandfather provided Nazi germany with a third of the Iron and steel they needed to wage world war, fact!

Old facts. More facts? Rolls Royce supplied Nazi Germany with over half of its fighter and bomber engines. Is that a reason to hate Rolls Royce today? No, because those people are dead and gone. All we can expect from the past is to learn from it, not judge people today based on it.

Anyway I am going off topic. The main point I want to raise is, can the US army justify this spending? With more and more becoming uneployed and loosing their livlihoods every day. We are the ones who will suffer the fallout of this economic disaster us and our children. It could all be solved with a simple fix. cut military spending by 50%.

Thats a very simplistic argument, with too many rebuttles to post here. Suffice to say: Enjoy the freedom, peace and prosperity your military powers have afforded you. Good intentions do not defeat men with evil intentions. Well trained armies do.

[Dylflon]

Hey man, don't mess with the Canadian army.

Or else they'll tell on you!

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Hey man, don't mess with the Canadian army.

Or else they'll tell on you!

While funny to joke about due to the size of Canada's military, I think the Canadian military has a largely unsung but proud history. They had shit duty on D-Day, climbing up rock faces to take out artillery that could have ruined the entire enterprise. Now, maybe this wasn't quite as shitty as running through a football field length of barbed wire, landmines and machine gun fire, but hell... I wouldn't want to do it, and it took a ton of training and skill.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

While funny to joke about due to the size of Canada's military, I think the Canadian military has a largely unsung but proud history. They had shit duty on D-Day, climbing up rock faces to take out artillery that could have ruined the entire enterprise. Now, maybe this wasn't quite as shitty as running through a football field length of barbed wire, landmines and machine gun fire, but hell... I wouldn't want to do it, and it took a ton of training and skill.

Oh I was just joking.

I think our army is very well trained and has a long history of kicking ass when necessary. Especially in World War I where they were feared by the Germans. Feared!

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So the American military is responsible for world poverty? And by the way the US publicly and privately donates more money to figt world hunger than any other country in the world, as also is the largest contributor to the UN's fight against pverty and world hunger as well.

No not at all. I meant in your oun country (assuming you are American). And I am not discounting the second part of your statement, you are correct. More or less.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So you're evidence to disprove these numbers is the fact you saw some new boats? I think your personal objection to military spending are tainting your objectivity on this subject.

No I was not trying to disprove the numbers, I said I was unsure as to their accuracy or I believed they were incorrect. This has been cleared up by BaB who stated that the figures are for 2007. A point I overlooked. And when I say boats, I mean three destroyers an aircraft carrier and at least one nuclear submarine that I saw. Those things are expensive.

For the record I am not opposed to military spending, just to how much spending it takes. For someone living in a country that doesnt even have a national health service, can they really justify the spending on wmd's.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Old facts. More facts? Rolls Royce supplied Nazi Germany with over half of its fighter and bomber engines. Is that a reason to hate Rolls Royce today? No, because those people are dead and gone. All we can expect from the past is to learn from it, not judge people today based on it.

Wrong! Rolls Royce supplied these things before the war broke out. After that the Rolls engines were adapted by the Nazi's. We then put our new Rolls engines in our Spit Fires etc. Seriously mate, my Grandmother used to build the planes. England were one of the first countrys to place an international trades embago upon Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Thats a very simplistic argument, with too many rebuttles to post here.

Not only am I a financial advisor, so I know I am correct. But as for well trained armies. Give me an example, go on, and I am not blaming the Americans on this one, but look at the fucking mess we have caused in Iraq, Afganistan, etc.
Why should these people fight it out and solve it themselves, when we messed it up. A tyrant though he was, at least saddam kept these people in check. Iraq was and is not a third world country. It was all about oil and Bush's personal vendetta ...'let's not forget, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad'... that says it all.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Suffice to say: Enjoy the freedom, peace and prosperity your military powers have afforded you. Good intentions do not defeat men with evil intentions. Well trained armies do.

Actually thats the whole point of the UN. And they have kept our planet pretty peaceful for a long time. The trouble comes when countries ignore them and do what they like anyway. As with Iraq.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Ric

Wrong! Rolls Royce supplied these things before the war broke out. After that the Rolls engines were adapted by the Nazi's. We then put our new Rolls engines in our Spit Fires etc. Seriously mate, my Grandmother used to build the planes. England were the first country to place an international trades embago upon Nazi Germany.

I didn't argue whether or not the war had broke out, I argued that they supplied the engines to Nazi germany, and they did even after they annexed Austria. Chamberlain knew quite well who they were dealing with and didn't care. It wasn't until Prime Minister's changed and England ended their nationalist policies that what you're talking about took place. Please don't attempt to revise history by quibbling over small points.

By the way, I'm not saying that America was any better, my point was that all of this is in the past, and it doesn't affect out current situation in the least. Long story short: Everyone you're angry with is DEAD and their kids are RETIRED or DEAD. Get over it and lets concentrate on reality. Searching back nearly 80 years ago for arguments only appeals to our emotional senses of vengeance and generational justice.

Not only am I a financial advisor, so I know I am correct.

LOL!! Really? Because to me it looks like financial advisors shat the bed quite recently. Argue facts, not your profession. Financial expertise is immaterial when the argument is there would be no wealth to redistrubute if we didn't have a strong military to support and protect it, and not only protect it nationally but internationally. Read The Case for Goliath to see how important that military spending is to the world, not just the US.

Why should these people fight it out and solve it themselves, when we messed it up. A tyrant though he was,at least saddam kept these people in check. Iraq was and is not a third world country. It was all about oil and Bush's personal vendetta ...'let's not forget, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad'... that says it all.[/quote]

Does your financial expertise tell you all this as well? These are all old arguments that we've argued about relentlessly over the last 6 or more years, so I'll pass on beating a dead horse. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. If there is nothing new to add except for stale platitudes like "he killed mah daddah!!", "blood for oil", etc. I think we can put this exchange to rest.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I didn't argue whether or not the war had broke out, I argued that they supplied the engines to Nazi germany, and they did even after they annexed Austria. Chamberlain knew quite well who they were dealing with and didn't care. It wasn't until Prime Minister's changed and England ended their nationalist policies that what you're talking about took place. Please don't attempt to revise history by quibbling over small points.

Ok you are more or less correct. It seems they teach us differently in schools over here. The fact that the engines were already commissioned and paid for before then makes no odds I suppose.

Originally Posted by Professor S

By the way, I'm not saying that America was any better, my point was that all of this is in the past, and it doesn't affect out current situation in the least. Long story short: Everyone you're angry with is DEAD and their kids are RETIRED or DEAD. Get over it and lets concentrate on reality. Searching back nearly 80 years ago for arguments only appeals to our emotional senses of vengeance and generational justice.

My father is not retired or dead. And a generation as short as my grandfather ago is not a very long time at all. Concentrate on reality you say. I lived in Berlin 2 years ago and watched todays equivilent of the Nazi party growing in favour. Thats todays reality. We would be foolish not to learn from the mistakes of our history.

Anyway as I said in my origional post on this subject. I am going off on a tangent and this was not the point I wanted to discuss.

Originally Posted by Professor S

LOL!! Really? Because to me it looks like financial advisors shat the bed quite recently. Argue facts, not your profession. Financial expertise is immaterial when the argument is there would be no wealth to redistrubute if we didn't have a strong military to support and protect it, and not only protect it nationally but internationally. Read The Case for Goliath to see how important that military spending is to the world, not just the US.

No actually I pulled out because I saw the trade defecit coming in 2007. And I did not say we dont need an army to protect our interests. I said we dont need to spend so much money on it.

You want me to argue facts, do I really need to explain how Europe is directly affected by America and in turn China. It is a world trade circle. Made possible by, among many other factors. The petro chemical dollar, I trust you know what that is.

And heres another fact, before everything else, money makes the world go round so my profession puts me in a perfect place for this discussion.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Does your financial expertise tell you all this as well? These are all old arguments that we've argued about relentlessly over the last 6 or more years, so I'll pass on beating a dead horse. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. If there is nothing new to add except for stale platitudes like "he killed mah daddah!!", "blood for oil", etc. I think we can put this exchange to rest.

Yes, good. And now we can get back to the whole point of my topic all the way back in my first post. Can you really justify this kind of spending on the military? We are talking about an exchange of money greater than that of the entire wealth of some countries.

When we go to war against another country it comes down to a few basic facts, what the military and government want us the public to believe, and what is actually going on.

Why are we in Afganistan? Opium, thats why! The backbone of the developed worlds medical and health treatments. The same drugs you get in paracetamol or asprin even morphine are all derived from one plant. Poppies, the same one they make heroine out of.

Why are we in Iraq. Oil. 25% of the worlds supply of it. Enough to keep the US and Europe's economy strong for the next 50 years.

The three most valuable commodities on the planet. G.O.D.
Gold - Oil and Drugs

EDIT - for the record. Yes this is what armies are for. But charity should start at home. England just printed 75 billion pounds in new banknotes. And there are still homeless people living in the streets in our country.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Ric

Look at these figures seriously.

With the world in economic meltdown is it right for the US to still be spending over half of its countries wealth each year on it's military. Do they even really need it? Whilst millions suffer in poverty as a result.

I think youll find the figures for Britain are incorrect. I live along the same stretch of ocean as the largest naval base in the country and they just got a whole bunch of new boats. That must have cost a bit. Mind you, we dont need to spend so much. Were better at using what we have already got.

A friend of mine is a Royal Marine. On recent shore leave he was with a group of americans. One of them carried a card, given out by his commanding officer. On the front it said 'Do Not Drink, Fight or Gamble With The British' and on the back it said 'Because You Will Loose' I found this very amusing.

What is the point of a country having the largest army if they dont use it effectively? In WW2 the canadians were with us from day 1. We had to wait years for the yanks to get on board. Largely due to Nazi sympathisers living in the U.S. Dont forget there was a national vote in U.S history as to wether the predominant language of the country should be German or English. George W Bushes grandfather provided Nazi germany with a third of the Iron and steel they needed to wage world war, fact!

Anyway I am going off topic. The main point I want to raise is, can the US army justify this spending? With more and more becoming uneployed and loosing their livlihoods every day. We are the ones who will suffer the fallout of this economic disaster us and our children. It could all be solved with a simple fix. Cut military spending by 50%.

The simple answer to the start and end of your point is this is what we spent in 2007, long before the whole economic mess started and I believe we are trying to cut back on military spending.

But at this point we are like the sole superpower, and the unofficial guardian of the Western Hemisphere.