What's new

Trump seeks 'historic' increase of 9pc in defence spending

Is it true that in your China, a lot of children have to climb shaky rope bridges to get to school ?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/chinese-students-climb-2000-foot-bamboo-ladder-get-school-n581596

So why are you building 'stealth' fighters and aircraft carriers ? Are you not taking funds away from these children ?


My point is this...

Does Pakistan have a military ? Why ? What for ? Are you not taking money away from your education system when half of your population is illiterate ?

First of all, if Pakistan had a military anywhere close US, I would have not supported any rise in spending. US has a massively strong military in every sector. In addition, they have the most high-tech arms in the world. There is no one the world who can dream of attacking, or even defending against US in a conventional war.

Given this, why not spend these $54B in the places in US where the country needs NOW.

And this was my point in my mutually sarcastic conversation where you picked up my post.

What we, both, were trying to say was that US needs investment in health, education, public sector and try to bring the people out of poverty.

Problems that US are facing, and will face in near future, are not going to be solved by an extra $54B spent in military. In fact the problems will get worse.

You do not understand the basis for what Trump said.

The complexity for America's health care system came from the WANT for government to be the paternal figure in every American's life. The solution for that complexity is very simple -- leave people alone.

That is not being cruel. That is how the US was founded. Let people take care of themselves. The desire, no matter how altruistic it maybe, to take care of people when they are sick and have the government be in charge of the entire process, predictably met with resistance. Over the yrs, the entire issue grew into the institutional and financial monster that is the American health care system. THAT is what Trump was talking about. Sanders laughed because philosophically, he contributed to the creation of that monster.

Leave people alone -- why is that so difficult to do ?

...and neither did Bernie..:-)

You do not understand the basis for what Trump said.

The complexity for America's health care system came from the WANT for government to be the paternal figure in every American's life. The solution for that complexity is very simple -- leave people alone.

That is not being cruel. That is how the US was founded. Let people take care of themselves. The desire, no matter how altruistic it maybe, to take care of people when they are sick and have the government be in charge of the entire process, predictably met with resistance. Over the yrs, the entire issue grew into the institutional and financial monster that is the American health care system. THAT is what Trump was talking about. Sanders laughed because philosophically, he contributed to the creation of that monster.

Leave people alone -- why is that so difficult to do ?

Governments are not elected to leave the people alone.
 
Last edited:
First of all, if Pakistan had a military anywhere close US, I would have not supported any rise in spending.
I do not care the size of Pakistan's military. Does the size of the US military take food away from Pakistanis ?

If not, then leave ours alone, just like the size of the Pakistani military does not take food away from Americans.

Governments are not elected to leave the people alone.
And that is why the Founding Fathers of the US were wise men beyond their time. That is why the US Constitution was architectured the way it is -- to limit the power of an intrusive government as much as possible.

I can see that you bought into the idea that the government should be that paternal figure in people's lives.
 
I do not care the size of Pakistan's military. Does the size of the US military take food away from Pakistanis ?

If not, then leave ours alone, just like the size of the Pakistani military does not take food away from Americans.


And that is why the Founding Fathers of the US were wise men beyond their time. That is why the US Constitution was architectured the way it is -- to limit the power of an intrusive government as much as possible.

I can see that you bought into the idea that the government should be that paternal figure in people's lives.

To your first post: I am giving a generic philosophical argument. The argument is not limited to a particular geographical area. "Leave us alone" is a redundant statement. If this is the argument, and everyone should be left alone, then why the need to come on PDF; and why exchange the thoughts in forums?

To your second post: No I have not bought into the PATERNALISTIC idea or a nanny state. Let me make it simple. If I elect the President, do I elect him/her to make the decisions that are helpful to me...OR...to "leave me alone".
 
Last edited:
It was expected, since most of his higher chosen circle came from the military..his inclination towards the military was obvious..They almost did a coup against Obama by stating their disagreements with him, eventhough he was their Commander-in-Chief!.. Scary stuff..
 
To your first post: I am giving a generic philosophical argument. The argument is not limited to a particular geographical area.
And I posited my own philosophical argument.

The criticism here is that somehow the US is 'evil' for having an increase in our military budget. What we do is perfectly normal. Every country that have a military does the same thing. I am not saying they increase their military budget, am saying that these militaries petition for additional funds, the government analyzes the petitions, and approves or disapproves. The amount of money, in my opinion, does nothing more than provides gristle for ignorant criticisms from foreigners.

Despite the fact that you claimed to be a doctor, I will simplify further for you...

If you are a PhD and I have only a Masters, how are you a threat to me ? None.

But if you are machine gun while I am just a simple bolt action rifle, definitely you are a threat, or at least a potential threat.

Do you see the point of having a military in the first place ?

Health care, building bridges, and educate the young, these things are long term items, whereas building a military to present at least a credible deterrence is immediate. That is not the US position but EVERYBODY. Why else do you think peoples create militaries ?

So again...Until your country, and I do not mean Pakistan in general but to anyone who want to criticize US, dismantle your military, STFU about ours.

"Leave us alone" is a redundant statement. If this is the argument, and everyone should be left alone, then why the need to come on PDF, why to exchange the thoughts in forums?
No problems there. But just because one has a 'thought', that does not mean that 'thought' is intellectually sound. You present yours, I presented mine.

To your second post:
No I have not bought into the PATERNALISTIC idea or a nanny state. Let me make it simple. If I elect the President, do I elect him/her to make the decisions that are helpful to me...OR...to "leave me alone".
How about both ? Why does it have to be an 'either/or' proposition ?

Am not a Bruce Lee fan, but he was often quoted as : 'Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.'

Why not do the same for what a government want ? Reject what is useless and/or harmful to individual liberties. Adapt what enforces the protection to those same liberties ?

The Marxis/Leftist position is that the government is inherently 'good' when all evidences have been proven otherwise. And yet, they still insists on experimentation.
 
And I posited my own philosophical argument.

The criticism here is that somehow the US is 'evil' for having an increase in our military budget. What we do is perfectly normal. Every country that have a military does the same thing. I am not saying they increase their military budget, am saying that these militaries petition for additional funds, the government analyzes the petitions, and approves or disapproves. The amount of money, in my opinion, does nothing more than provides gristle for ignorant criticisms from foreigners.

Despite the fact that you claimed to be a doctor, I will simplify further for you...

If you are a PhD and I have only a Masters, how are you a threat to me ? None.

But if you are machine gun while I am just a simple bolt action rifle, definitely you are a threat, or at least a potential threat.

Do you see the point of having a military in the first place ?

Health care, building bridges, and educate the young, these things are long term items, whereas building a military to present at least a credible deterrence is immediate. That is not the US position but EVERYBODY. Why else do you think peoples create militaries ?

So again...Until your country, and I do not mean Pakistan in general but to anyone who want to criticize US, dismantle your military, STFU about ours.


No problems there. But just because one has a 'thought', that does not mean that 'thought' is intellectually sound. You present yours, I presented mine.


How about both ? Why does it have to be an 'either/or' proposition ?

Am not a Bruce Lee fan, but he was often quoted as : 'Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.'

Why not do the same for what a government want ? Reject what is useless and/or harmful to individual liberties. Adapt what enforces the protection to those same liberties ?

The Marxis/Leftist position is that the government is inherently 'good' when all evidences have been proven otherwise. And yet, they still insists on experimentation.

I think you have reacted in an overtly sensitive manner. Nobody is saying US is "evil" because she is spending $54B extra on its military. The argument that is being presented is, there are / can be better uses of these $54B - and in the interest of US (examples as highlighted earlier). This argument is from a different perspective and is valid.

By the way, PhD can be a threat to Masters. Take this example. A PhD can present a better argument than Masters. If a PhD and a Masters apply for the same job, the PhD is likely to be favoured for the job. Hence, PhD is a threat to Masters.

I do see the point of having military in the first place. But US military is already so large and powerful that it DOES NOT NEED to become more powerful.

Sir! For US, healthcare / bridges / educating the young are the problems of today (not long term). You only need to listen to the election speeches of Trump. He repeatedly talked about these issues. In addition, just try and think the reasons behind this "American Spring" in these elections. You will realize that American people are fed up and want someone who can do something for them. To do something for the people, you do not need to increase military spending.

Bruce Lee was never known for his brains, so I will not follow his advice.

As far as Govt. is concerned, if you want to apply the logic you have presented in your post, then please do take some time to read Hitler's Philosophy for the German Nation and why he went to war with Poland and Hungary.

Every theory (Marxism / Left / Right / Communism / Capitalism) has its strengths and weaknesses, and this is not the place to discuss them.
 
"Not much use"....you keep telling yourself that. This increase will accelerate the modernization of the US Armed Forces, which clearly some members on here are unhappy about.

^^^Pretty much this^^^

Yet some of these same members would be going hyper nationalistic and chest thumping from the highest rooftop if their respective countries had a dramatic or even semi dramatic increase in military spending.

They would consider it great and be screaming something like "we big, we strong we destroy" like some of the usual over the top keyboard Warrior hyper nationalists here.
 
I think you have reacted in an overtly sensitive manner. Nobody is saying US is "evil" because she is spending $54B extra on its military.
The insinuation is there. I merely spoke what people are too chickenshit to say aloud.

The argument that is being presented is, there are / can be better uses of these $54B - and in the interest of US (examples as highlighted earlier). This argument is from a different perspective and is valid.
You may believe it is valid. I believe -- not.

Ultimately, of course that 54 bils can be better used elsewhere. But if we allocated to education, for example, that money will not yield results for at least two decades, while the manufacturing leadership will criticize the government as ignoring the immediate problem of jobs. Do you see my point ?

By the way, PhD can be a threat to Masters. Take this example. A PhD can present a better argument than Masters. If a PhD and a Masters apply for the same job, the PhD is likely to be favoured for the job. Hence, PhD is a threat to Masters.
Can ? I seen plenty of BS who got the job over those with higher degrees.

I do see the point of having military in the first place. But US military is already so large and powerful that it DOES NOT NEED to become more powerful.
Need is relative. You say no. We say yes. We want to be overly dominant and our wealth allows US to be so.
 
[/QUOTE] Need is relative. You say no. We say yes. We want to be overly dominant and our wealth allows US to be so.[/QUOTE]

I just want to reply to your last sentence ("overtly dominant wealth").

You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

US has an economy 30-trillion and has a budget deficit that is now topping 18-trillion. This is not an example of overtly dominant wealth.
 
Yeah US army were tired of fighting. So they left leaving half of Korea.

Not going to discuss all other item with you, but I am going to say something about your preception about Korean War.

First of all, US never, ever wanted Korea to be unified, neither Truman nor the Congress wanted MacArthur go over to the 38 parallel. If you look at the 4 years prior to North Korea invaded the south. You can see the South Korean militaryy were not rebuild and have no training, no modern weaponry, no organisation and remained a militia force, that is the reason why it only take NK 3 months to go all the way to Pusan, because the South Korean Military does not exist at that point. Truman do not want to arm the South Korea Military so that they can go invade the North, that is true in 1946, before the war broke out, that is also true in 1950 when the war broke out.

Invading the North Korea after the UN troop pushes out the North Invasion have nothing to do with the US government, it was done prehaps by chance but mostly because of MacAuthur and the South Korean. UN go along with it, but with no authority between UN and the POTUS, the resolution 84 (which authorise force heading by the US to expel the North Korean invader) ended the authority only when they reaches the Status Quo, Resolution 84 was never intented to roll over North Korea and unify the Koreas

Thus, when the UN Force started to assemble, they were set with that goal in mind (Defending the South), and was mainly a defence force. Not an invasion force, with minimal tanks and offensive weaponry. But rather a large bulk of Infantry and Air Support. And the logistic was not build to stand up to stretch from Pusan all the way to Ap Loc river in the Chinese Border. In fact, when MacAuthur stated that they are going over to the North, many people within the US government and US military express their disbelieve. And one of them is truman. That is why when it eventually failed, Truman have to replace MacAuthur, even tho that mean he have to commit political suicide.

And if you look at the situation now, you can also argue had US indeed push the North korean all the way back to China, and North Korea ceased to exist at that point. China would not have lose 200,000 men to the war, may be able to recover the renegade Provice of Taiwan, and there will be no reason for US troop to station in South Korea, if China is using its influence smartly, an Unifed Korea under the South would have been entrenched in Chinese Camp now. Truman saw that, and he don't want the Koreas to be unified. So the current situation works for the best for the US. That is why US hang back with the UN force, and that is the reason why Chinese can push the UN force from the North, not because the Chinese were superior.

In fact, some one could argue North Korea actually did a better job invading the South Korea than the Chinese, beucase Chinese offensive stuck in 32 Parallel and eventually being pushed back to about the 38th (which is the current border) But the North Korean had all the way roll thur the south ending their offensive in Pusan.

I agree. But Here US and the west criticize Russian action in Ukraine. US condemns China's doings in the South China Sea. But that's all they do. More like that's all they can do. US seems to be having some problem playing the world police. That's all I'm stating. I'm not saying that US is becoming an irrelevant country. It seems that they can't project their power all across the globe as good as they could 2 decades ago.

I personal don't think the US have problem playing world police these day, they are just playing it smart. You are confused between not willing to act and not capable to act.

You don't need to fight an actual war if there is an alternative, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were no alternative, the Amreican cannot use the kurd to fight a proxy war with Iraq as they tried that after 1991, and we can all see what had happened.

US tried to use Pakistan to hinder Afghanitan, but in fact, the public demanded the US troop on the ground becasue of OBL, hence US send troop to Afghanistan.

In Chinese case, there are A LOT more alternative. With the Chinese Threat and SCS tension, American don't need to do anything themselves and they will just bankroll country like Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Japan, South Korea, even Australia. We saw an increase armament sale to all these country where they weren't used to be that big of a deal, but since the Chinese being painted a bad guy and they willingly played the role, the American have a lot of military equipment order filling those country. Earning a lot of money selling C-17, Apache, F-16, F-35, MLRS, Ships, Artillery Gun and so on.

Money feed from fear, if the fear is gone, then the money is gone, why the US need to esculate the situation when the current one suited their need. Just keep buying from the US and keep fanning dear for money, SCS have no strategic value for the US, why would the American wanted to invade??

Sames goes to Ukraine, Sames goes to Georgia.
 
Here is a quote from a German history website dedicated to the Nazi era:

Wie zielstrebig sich Deutschland auf den Krieg vorbereitete, zeigt der Anteil der Rüstungsausgaben an den Reichsausgaben: Er stieg von 8,2 Prozent (1932) über 39,3 Prozent (1934) auf 61 Prozent (1938).

My translation: Military spending went from 8.2 % in 1932 to 61 % in 1938.

Source: http://www3.ilch.uminho.pt/kultur/Das NS-Regime.htm

The similarities are impressive. Besides, I am not sure, you may notice a similar tendency that allowed Hitler to solidify control over at least half of the population's thought process. Actions such as:

1. Demonization of the other
2. Grand, unrealistic promises
3. Frequent mass political rallies
4. Slogans
5. Militarization of the cabinet (no place for moderate voices)
6. Conspiracy making at the highest level of leadership
7. Aggressive foreign policy
8. Victimization of the self

Neofascist tendencies cannot be contained. Aggressive foreign policy has to have reflections in domestic politics.

I wonder Europe will be able to spare itself from the big fire ball the US is preparing to push the world into.

In any case, military sovereignty is very critical. Nuclear ability is the distinction between subjugation and independence. The formula is simple: If the US attacks China/Russia's vital existential interests, they will be responded equally.

Hence, so far, all talk, no action on part of US regime.

But, craziness has degrees. The US regime may be stepping over the critical benchmark of being aggressively crazy.

It is very difficult to understand their craziness because, in any case, they live in a pretty developed welfare society. I understand a poor country being crazy without capability, but, US being a crazy regime with destructive force is concerning.

Why is Trump so angry? And his government. They made an angry US people for little reason.
 
It is amazing how ignorant hillbilly/ shitbilly and Western toadys come here and put down China. These fools need a visit to Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing or any other large Chinese city, and in one second they will come to their senses.

Today's China is not the China of 40 years ago! It is a fukking superpower now! I have seen this with my own eys recently on a Chinese business trip.

Whatever these hillbilly did over last 200 years, China has replicated in just 40 years.....these hillbilly need to get real......China doesn't envy, its way past that point.

Need is relative. You say no. We say yes. We want to be overly dominant and our wealth allows US to be so.[/QUOTE]

I just want to reply to your last sentence ("overtly dominant wealth").

You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

US has an economy 30-trillion and has a budget deficit that is now topping 18-trillion. This is not an example of overtly dominant wealth.[/QUOTE]
 
I just want to reply to your last sentence ("overtly dominant wealth").

You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

US has an economy 30-trillion and has a budget deficit that is now topping 18-trillion. This is not an example of overtly dominant wealth.
What I see is nothing more than petty jealousy in this thread.

You, and I do not mean YOU personally, instead of enjoying that nice slow roasted herb chicken on your plate, you focus on the dry aged ribeye steak on your neighbor's plate. Instead of being thankful of that glass of clean water, you are peeved that your neighbor can afford wine. But petty jealousy is distasteful in polite company, so you couched it in altruism like how he could better spend his money on school supplies for his children or alms for the poor.
 
Last edited:
17039400_10154971458661678_142333613049516332_o.jpg


First, they have to cut the veterans' benefits completely. Those lazy bums with all their experiences should be at the front line and not idling around and spewing crap on the internet like gambit. Since the US education system is broken beyond repair, CNN, Fox and ther other alphabet broadcasters should become the prefered institutions of education for US citizens. If you are lazy, you should not have any rights to food, unemployment benefits and healthcare in the US. The benchmark should be 1 trillion USD for military spending. Full spectrum dominance, yeah!

This is YUUUUGE!
Wow you nailed it with the veteran bum professional :rofl:

17039400_10154971458661678_142333613049516332_o.jpg


First, they have to cut the veterans' benefits completely. Those lazy bums with all their experiences should be at the front line and not idling around and spewing crap on the internet like gambit. Since the US education system is broken beyond repair, CNN, Fox and ther other alphabet broadcasters should become the prefered institutions of education for US citizens. If you are lazy, you should not have any rights to food, unemployment benefits and healthcare in the US. The benchmark should be 1 trillion USD for military spending. Full spectrum dominance, yeah!

This is YUUUUGE!
Wow you nailed it with the veteran bum professional :rofl:
[

Plus twenty outnumbered Russian football hooligans destroyed British fans in euro 2012

"Total National Wealth, is the total sum value of monetary assets minus liabilities of a given nation. It refers to the total value of wealth possessed by the citizens of a nation at a set point in time. This figure is an important indicator of a nation's ability to take on debt and sustain spending"

View attachment 380550

Light Work. We are fine. Latent power.
Ah I can see this one is no financial analyst or economist :rofl:
 
You don't need to fight an actual war if there is an alternative, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were no alternative, the Amreican cannot use the kurd to fight a proxy war with Iraq as they tried that after 1991, and we can all see what had happened.

US tried to use Pakistan to hinder Afghanitan, but in fact, the public demanded the US troop on the ground becasue of OBL, hence US send troop to Afghanistan.
Well what did the wars get you? After spending 3 trillions in Iraq you find ISIS scums at power. Fighting 15 years in Afghanistan and Talibans still control 60% of the country. And once US pulls out Talibans will probably get Kabul as well.
Sames goes to Ukraine, Sames goes to Georgia.
?????????????????????

Russia took Crimea. And US could do nothing......Same with Abkhazia................You guys couldn't do enough to deter Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom