Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Justification for Large Military

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:10:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:02:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:50:23 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:28:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.

Define "necessary".

Google it, I'm sure you can locate definitions of words on the internet.

Obviously I meant define the context within which you are using the word. Obviously I am asking because I find whatever context you are using to be wholly unrealistic.

Necessary to defend us. That is what defense spending is for right?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:13:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:07:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?

The answer to this is simple. No, but you are discounting the entrance of a 3rd party, or a 4th, or a 5th party.

The US spends more than the next 26 nations combined, because there is a possibility that many of them may ally against the US if given the chance.

Shoot you're right, we better spend more because that 27th country might join the fight and then we'd be at a spending disadvantage. There's a better chance an asteroid hits earth and ens life as we know it. That's got to be one of the worst arguments I've heard for our spending levels. Stick with defending our need to control international resources and trade.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:23:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 8:23:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:56:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
*cough*Cold War logic*cough*

This is no longer just logic, but historical fact. The Cold War is over, the data is in. We are imminently more civilized now than we were before the Cold War, as measured by global casualties from warfare.

We're more civilized because we cooled down on all the war-mongering bullshit.

But we still have a long way to go.

Retaining our armies means succumbing to the prisoner's dilemma.
The Beast
Dakota
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 4:43:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:45:53 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:38:30 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:19:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We sanctioned Britain in the 50s?
Like I said, sanctions never work. You are really going to argue that if there weren't sanctions on Iran and North Korea, that they would be formidable military foes? I'd debate that any day.
Yed, during the Suez crisis. Sanctions aren't supposed to be a means of causing regime change. They can work if they are used properly. They may not have a comparable military, but their nuclear programs would be much more of a threat.

We've never put sanctions on Britain in the 50s. I maintain that sanctions never work.
http://www.globalsecurity.org...
"To stop the fighting even as British and French warplanes bombed Egyptian targets, he imposed sanctions on the colluding powers, achieved a United Nations ceasefire resolution, and organized a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to disengage the combatants"

Fine example of diplomacy failing, and sanctions working. Sanctions can work.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 4:54:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 4:43:46 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:45:53 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:38:30 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:19:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We sanctioned Britain in the 50s?
Like I said, sanctions never work. You are really going to argue that if there weren't sanctions on Iran and North Korea, that they would be formidable military foes? I'd debate that any day.
Yed, during the Suez crisis. Sanctions aren't supposed to be a means of causing regime change. They can work if they are used properly. They may not have a comparable military, but their nuclear programs would be much more of a threat.

We've never put sanctions on Britain in the 50s. I maintain that sanctions never work.
http://www.globalsecurity.org...
"To stop the fighting even as British and French warplanes bombed Egyptian targets, he imposed sanctions on the colluding powers, achieved a United Nations ceasefire resolution, and organized a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to disengage the combatants"

Fine example of diplomacy failing, and sanctions working. Sanctions can work.

According to wikipedia the US only threatened sanctions against the UK, along with various other financial threats. Find me a better source saying sanctions went through and I'll concede.
Nevertheless I'll alter my statement to say that sanctions never work on non-friendly nations. That better?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 5:13:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:32:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:20:07 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?
So you want to force the military to more with less resources. That doesn't make sense. The united states cut its defense spending right before both world wars, Korean war, and the Vietnam war. And when Britain cut their Navy in the 80s, Argentina immediately invaded the falkand islands due to lack of deterrence. Without our carriers presence in hormuz, how long do you think it would take for some countries to start fighting to fill our power void?

So yes, the world would likely become a lot become more belligerent if we cut our military.

Do you think carierrs just float around in water indefinitely? What about when they return to harbor for maintenance? Carriers can only be deployed for a limited time in a cycle (cycle is currently 32 mo.s)
You're saying if we don't spend 160 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, Iran is going to take the straight of hormuz?
Straw-manning. Im saying we have a lot of military duties and they should all be adequately funded.
I'm saying the military should do less with less.
...at the expense of our national security and hegemony. So you admit cutting defense spending is harmful?
You're excuse for ever expanding military spending is that the Brit's couldn't maintain a territory halfway around the world?
I'm sure the 3000 people living in the Falklands are of vital importance to international peace.
I am demonstrating that less military power = less deterrence. Also...
escalation n. "A deliberate or unpremeditated increase in scope or violence of a conflict."
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 5:56:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:45:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:38:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

That is because they are cold and uncaring towards their people and do not care if they suffer from embargo's (a result of is using our economic influence). What's supposed to happen when the country doesn't cave in to the embargo's is that the people are supposed to rebel due to their suffering.

And we know all this going in, we know sanctions have never worked and only hurt the people, yet we sanction away as if its ever helped us achieve anything. Countries never cave to sanctions, try respect and diplomacy, it has a far better track record. Why are we posturing? They pose zero threat militarily, yet we hit the people with sanctions as if that helps the situation.

We usually do try sanctions, but when dealing w/ people like Hussein, the Iranians, Fidel (when he was the big man in Cuba), The leader of North Korea who's name I can not pronounce, they usually are the types that don't care if their people suffer from embargo's', due to some moral relativism, it's sickening really. Also, we hit nations with sanctions, usually for having a repressive or oppressive domestic regime, also, you think that we should continue to trade with a nation and fuel them economically, even if we are at war with them? Interesting.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:04:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 5:56:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:45:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:38:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

That is because they are cold and uncaring towards their people and do not care if they suffer from embargo's (a result of is using our economic influence). What's supposed to happen when the country doesn't cave in to the embargo's is that the people are supposed to rebel due to their suffering.

And we know all this going in, we know sanctions have never worked and only hurt the people, yet we sanction away as if its ever helped us achieve anything. Countries never cave to sanctions, try respect and diplomacy, it has a far better track record. Why are we posturing? They pose zero threat militarily, yet we hit the people with sanctions as if that helps the situation.

We usually do try sanctions, but when dealing w/ people like Hussein, the Iranians, Fidel (when he was the big man in Cuba), The leader of North Korea who's name I can not pronounce, they usually are the types that don't care if their people suffer from embargo's', due to some moral relativism, it's sickening really. Also, we hit nations with sanctions, usually for having a repressive or oppressive domestic regime, also, you think that we should continue to trade with a nation and fuel them economically, even if we are at war with them? Interesting.

Which countries, exactly, are we at war with? I didn't think we'd declared war on a country in a long time.
Sanctions haven't accomplished anything, your point about them being bad guys is mute. They're still in charge, their people are still suffering and it doesn't look like sanctions are all of the sudden going to start working in the future.
One thing I will say sanction do, they grow contempt and hatred throughout the globe. One of the reasons Bin Laden gave for 911 was how our sanctions and bombing killed a half million Iraqi children in the 90's.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:19:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:13:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:07:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?

The answer to this is simple. No, but you are discounting the entrance of a 3rd party, or a 4th, or a 5th party.

The US spends more than the next 26 nations combined, because there is a possibility that many of them may ally against the US if given the chance.

Shoot you're right, we better spend more because that 27th country might join the fight and then we'd be at a spending disadvantage. There's a better chance an asteroid hits earth and ens life as we know it. That's got to be one of the worst arguments I've heard for our spending levels. Stick with defending our need to control international resources and trade.

I know I'm right. :)

Glad you don't have an argument to the contrary.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:21:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:23:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:23:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:56:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
*cough*Cold War logic*cough*

This is no longer just logic, but historical fact. The Cold War is over, the data is in. We are imminently more civilized now than we were before the Cold War, as measured by global casualties from warfare.

We're more civilized because we cooled down on all the war-mongering bullshit.

But we still have a long way to go.

Retaining our armies means succumbing to the prisoner's dilemma.

Our armies are a lot smaller as a percentage of GDP than they were during the Cold War.

Not playing the game properly tends to result in you losing the game.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:22:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:13:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:07:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?

The answer to this is simple. No, but you are discounting the entrance of a 3rd party, or a 4th, or a 5th party.

The US spends more than the next 26 nations combined, because there is a possibility that many of them may ally against the US if given the chance.

Shoot you're right, we better spend more because that 27th country might join the fight and then we'd be at a spending disadvantage. There's a better chance an asteroid hits earth and ens life as we know it. That's got to be one of the worst arguments I've heard for our spending levels. Stick with defending our need to control international resources and trade.

BTW, you're more than welcome to debate me on this. I've debated and won on the topic once already, wouldn't mind winning another one on it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:24:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:22:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:13:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:07:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?

The answer to this is simple. No, but you are discounting the entrance of a 3rd party, or a 4th, or a 5th party.

The US spends more than the next 26 nations combined, because there is a possibility that many of them may ally against the US if given the chance.

Shoot you're right, we better spend more because that 27th country might join the fight and then we'd be at a spending disadvantage. There's a better chance an asteroid hits earth and ens life as we know it. That's got to be one of the worst arguments I've heard for our spending levels. Stick with defending our need to control international resources and trade.

BTW, you're more than welcome to debate me on this. I've debated and won on the topic once already, wouldn't mind winning another one on it.

Debating what exactly? That national security won't be hurt by spending only 600 billion on defense?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:24:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:22:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:13:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:07:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?

The answer to this is simple. No, but you are discounting the entrance of a 3rd party, or a 4th, or a 5th party.

The US spends more than the next 26 nations combined, because there is a possibility that many of them may ally against the US if given the chance.

Shoot you're right, we better spend more because that 27th country might join the fight and then we'd be at a spending disadvantage. There's a better chance an asteroid hits earth and ens life as we know it. That's got to be one of the worst arguments I've heard for our spending levels. Stick with defending our need to control international resources and trade.

BTW, you're more than welcome to debate me on this. I've debated and won on the topic once already, wouldn't mind winning another one on it.

Debating what exactly? That national security won't be hurt by spending only 600 billion on defense?

Whatever beef you have with the status quo.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:39:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

I would like to step in and say that the US may spend the most overall, but we only spend the 11th most as a % of our GDP.

So technically your point is mute, if we have more money to start, why wouldn't we allocate a decent amount of it to our national defense? Basically, we only spend the most because we have the most money to spend to start, if we had less money that the 10 countries ahead of us (as % of GDP), they would be the ones spending more overall basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:47:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because the United States, and its dominant elite, are nothing but a force for good and justice in the world. Pardon the sarcasm, but it's quite difficult to take abjectly realpolitik rationales for American hegemony terribly seriously as moral justifications.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:52:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:39:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

I would like to step in and say that the US may spend the most overall, but we only spend the 11th most as a % of our GDP.

So technically your point is mute, if we have more money to start, why wouldn't we allocate a decent amount of it to our national defense? Basically, we only spend the most because we have the most money to spend to start, if we had less money that the 10 countries ahead of us (as % of GDP), they would be the ones spending more overall basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Highest by % of GDP
Eritrea
Saudi Arabia
Oman
UAE
Israel
Chad
Jordan
Iraq
Georgia
USA
Kuwait
Angolia
Armenia
Lebanon

Ya you really nailed me on that one, % of GDP is definitely a relative figure. Those power players sure have a lot to show for their high military spending to GDP ratio.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:53:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:47:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because the United States, and its dominant elite, are nothing but a force for good and justice in the world. Pardon the sarcasm, but it's quite difficult to take abjectly realpolitik rationales for American hegemony terribly seriously as moral justifications.

I said the large military in itself is just, not the morality of it's actions. Liberals and in this case, Communists, always say we should be weak and have a small military, only because what we have done on the past was immoral (in their opinions, since morality can not be directly set in stone or defined). I do not support a lot of the actions of the US (I was Con for Iraq war, if you looked), but I do believe that hegemony done right (ideally) will work.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:56:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:52:40 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:39:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

I would like to step in and say that the US may spend the most overall, but we only spend the 11th most as a % of our GDP.

So technically your point is mute, if we have more money to start, why wouldn't we allocate a decent amount of it to our national defense? Basically, we only spend the most because we have the most money to spend to start, if we had less money that the 10 countries ahead of us (as % of GDP), they would be the ones spending more overall basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Highest by % of GDP
Eritrea
Saudi Arabia
Oman
UAE
Israel
Chad
Jordan
Iraq
Georgia
USA
Kuwait
Angolia
Armenia
Lebanon


Ya you really nailed me on that one, % of GDP is definitely a relative figure. Those power players sure have a lot to show for their high military spending to GDP ratio.

You are acting as if efficiency has anything to do with it. You are making a point that is nonsensical. You are trying to dispute a fact and justify your own fact that is flawed, and was proven to be irrelevant due to another fact. And the UAE, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have pretty decent militaries. The first stage of loss (loss of a a debate, namely), is ignorant denial. :p
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:30:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:53:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:47:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because the United States, and its dominant elite, are nothing but a force for good and justice in the world. Pardon the sarcasm, but it's quite difficult to take abjectly realpolitik rationales for American hegemony terribly seriously as moral justifications.

I said the large military in itself is just, not the morality of it's actions. Liberals and in this case, Communists, always say we should be weak and have a small military, only because what we have done on the past was immoral (in their opinions, since morality can not be directly set in stone or defined). I do not support a lot of the actions of the US (I was Con for Iraq war, if you looked), but I do believe that hegemony done right (ideally) will work.

Oh, so being opposed to militarism and the concept of hegemony is to be glibly dismissed as a "commie" thing? Hmm, then I'm quite proud to wear the label.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:44:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:30:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:53:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:47:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because the United States, and its dominant elite, are nothing but a force for good and justice in the world. Pardon the sarcasm, but it's quite difficult to take abjectly realpolitik rationales for American hegemony terribly seriously as moral justifications.

I said the large military in itself is just, not the morality of it's actions. Liberals and in this case, Communists, always say we should be weak and have a small military, only because what we have done on the past was immoral (in their opinions, since morality can not be directly set in stone or defined). I do not support a lot of the actions of the US (I was Con for Iraq war, .if you looked), but I do believe that hegemony done right (ideally) will work.
n t
Oh, so being opposed to militarism and the concept of hegemony is to be glibly dismissed as a "commie" thing? Hmm, then I'm quite proud to wear the label.

Once again, you try to win the public opinion and LIE by distorting what I said. I very clearly stated that having a strong military is necessary for hegemony, but it does not equate to hegemony. I also simply said that it is illogical and more a leftist concept to claim we should not have a strong military and national defense based on moral merit. Others (like libertarians), justify not having a strong military for economic and monetary reasons, you justify it based due to past immorality.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:48:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:44:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:30:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:53:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:47:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because the United States, and its dominant elite, are nothing but a force for good and justice in the world. Pardon the sarcasm, but it's quite difficult to take abjectly realpolitik rationales for American hegemony terribly seriously as moral justifications.

I said the large military in itself is just, not the morality of it's actions. Liberals and in this case, Communists, always say we should be weak and have a small military, only because what we have done on the past was immoral (in their opinions, since morality can not be directly set in stone or defined). I do not support a lot of the actions of the US (I was Con for Iraq war, .if you looked), but I do believe that hegemony done right (ideally) will work.
n t
Oh, so being opposed to militarism and the concept of hegemony is to be glibly dismissed as a "commie" thing? Hmm, then I'm quite proud to wear the label.

Once again, you try to win the public opinion and LIE by distorting what I said. I very clearly stated that having a strong military is necessary for hegemony, but it does not equate to hegemony. I also simply said that it is illogical and more a leftist concept to claim we should not have a strong military and national defense based on moral merit. Others (like libertarians), justify not having a strong military for economic and monetary reasons, you justify it based due to past immorality.

Alas, it's your thinking here that's somewhat distorted.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 9:33:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:46:30 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
One further problem:

4. I think you make the unwarranted assumption that this country (which, given your objection to my presence, I take to denote the territory) belongs to you and the group with which you identify, and that you possess some collective right of violent exclusion that you may exercise on anyone who refuses to assimilate.

Nope. You have to acknowledge your citizenship to be a citizen. Non-acknowledgement is de facto renunciation. Renouncing your citizenship means you are not an American citizen any longer. If you are not a citizen and you do not have a work visa, nor other permission to be in this country, then you are here illegally.

Please leave.

(the reason it's in the form of a command is because it's the law. Also, I didn't give America a female gender. Latin did.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 9:35:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 8:13:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:46:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.

http://www.regjeringen.no...

http://www.bmj.com...

400K deaths due to war each year since WW2. 2013 - 1947 = 76

76 X 400,000 = 30.4 million

That doesn't count genocides since WW2

http://simple.wikipedia.org...


That puts us right around 35 million dead due to war since WW2.

Can I be sarcastic again?

No you can't because even with your inflated numbers and the egregious undercounting of casualties in WWII (which is nearly twice your number), you still concede that the casualties the world has sustained over the last 70 years are on par with the casualties sustained during 5-6 years of conflict. This doesn't even take into consideration that as a percentage of the population, these casualties represent a far smaller portion of people living.

Pull out genocide deaths from both and then compare.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

LOL, that's the status quo, bro. That's MY argument. :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:26:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 9:35:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:13:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:46:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

That puts us right around 35 million dead due to war since WW2.

Can I be sarcastic again?

No you can't because even with your inflated numbers and the egregious undercounting of casualties in WWII (which is nearly twice your number), you still concede that the casualties the world has sustained over the last 70 years are on par with the casualties sustained during 5-6 years of conflict. This doesn't even take into consideration that as a percentage of the population, these casualties represent a far smaller portion of people living.

Pull out genocide deaths from both and then compare.

I will debate you over this. Very easy win for me.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 11:39:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:26:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 9:35:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:13:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:46:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

That puts us right around 35 million dead due to war since WW2.

Can I be sarcastic again?

No you can't because even with your inflated numbers and the egregious undercounting of casualties in WWII (which is nearly twice your number), you still concede that the casualties the world has sustained over the last 70 years are on par with the casualties sustained during 5-6 years of conflict. This doesn't even take into consideration that as a percentage of the population, these casualties represent a far smaller portion of people living.

Pull out genocide deaths from both and then compare.

I will debate you over this. Very easy win for me.

really, because pre-ww2 makes it look like I'd win. WW2 was an outlier. The Napoleonic wars were another. The World War that the British waged in the 1770s was another.

These outliers happen, but there is more constant war now than there ever has been, and we are often times the culprit.

I'm not going to debate you about now being worse than the years which encompassed WW2...obviously, it's not. However, putting WW2 aside, as well as the other periods of extreme death that I have mentioned, and I will debate you that war takes more lives (percentage-wise, obviously, since totals have much to do with the world population) now than it ever has.

Deal?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 11:47:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 11:39:03 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:26:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 9:35:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:13:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:46:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

That puts us right around 35 million dead due to war since WW2.

Can I be sarcastic again?

No you can't because even with your inflated numbers and the egregious undercounting of casualties in WWII (which is nearly twice your number), you still concede that the casualties the world has sustained over the last 70 years are on par with the casualties sustained during 5-6 years of conflict. This doesn't even take into consideration that as a percentage of the population, these casualties represent a far smaller portion of people living.

Pull out genocide deaths from both and then compare.

I will debate you over this. Very easy win for me.

really, because pre-ww2 makes it look like I'd win. WW2 was an outlier. The Napoleonic wars were another. The World War that the British waged in the 1770s was another.

These outliers happen, but there is more constant war now than there ever has been, and we are often times the culprit.

I'm not going to debate you about now being worse than the years which encompassed WW2...obviously, it's not. However, putting WW2 aside, as well as the other periods of extreme death that I have mentioned, and I will debate you that war takes more lives (percentage-wise, obviously, since totals have much to do with the world population) now than it ever has.

Deal?

I will warn you upfront to do your due diligence before challenging me. This is a very easy win for me, if I understand how you are going to word the resolution.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 11:58:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 9:33:35 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:46:30 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
One further problem:

4. I think you make the unwarranted assumption that this country (which, given your objection to my presence, I take to denote the territory) belongs to you and the group with which you identify, and that you possess some collective right of violent exclusion that you may exercise on anyone who refuses to assimilate.

Nope. You have to acknowledge your citizenship to be a citizen. Non-acknowledgement is de facto renunciation. Renouncing your citizenship means you are not an American citizen any longer. If you are not a citizen and you do not have a work visa, nor other permission to be in this country, then you are here illegally.

Please leave.

I would prefer not to.

(the reason it's in the form of a command is because it's the law. Also, I didn't give America a female gender. Latin did.)

Well, a command isn't an argument, so that's a shame.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Excluding the years which encompassed WW1 and WW2, The Napoleonic Wars, et al (I'll list them all out...basically the outlier times of mass death in the last 600 years), there has been more death and destruction, on average, every year for the last 100 years, than any other 100 year period in the 5 centuries which proceeded it.

How you like me now? You want in?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.