CDI was founded in 1972 by recently-retired, senior U.S. military officers. CDI became an independent monitor of the Pentagon.
The source is very confusing. The URL says 04, the date is 2003, and the asterisk says 2001. So we compare US 2003 with China 2001. The Chinese case is unique. There are many Chinese military owned businesses which generate large profits. I believe the cell phone company is one of those.
So are the figures government funding, or total expenditures? Have their expenditures increased since 2001? I suspect that $225 billion is much closer to expenditures that $47 billion your source lists. You might not choose to believe the $322 billion, but if it is right and you are saying they are not a threat, we are setting our nation up for a huge mess.
It takes years to bring a military machine up. The Chinese are investing in that process right now. Our negligence could be very costly. They have taken over several countries already without much comment from the West. They now control Tibet and Burma. They are discriminating against the native of those countries.
getting an accurate defense number for China must be fairly difficult.
This is a statement everyone can agree on.
American spending is way out of line
It is very low as a percentage of GDP by historical standards.
China is engaged in a conflict over maritime rights with Japan who is preventing China from mapping the sea bottom near a Southern Island. China is believed to be interested in this to prepare for submarine war with the US. China is preparing for war with the US.
This is conjecture nothing more. And its a form of conjecture that is reinforced with a kind of paranoia that is all too pervasive among certain groups in this country. I believe it is why defense spending is so high.
Then why is China trying to map the sea bottom? What is their commercial reason? That they are doing it is fact, the reason is under discussion. Using Occam's Razor, the logical conclusion is that they are preparing for submarine war.
Sorry, Peter, she is not "a useful warrior for the right". She encourages and promotes the schism that is growing between the red and blue voters. She is dangerous and clearly unAmerican.
She is no more dangerous than many FMSM commentators on national "news" broadcast. The difference is that she is not promoting the Democrat policy line. Look at the difference between how the FMSM handled Eason Jordon and Jeff Guckert. Jordon says very dangerous things and doesn't get mentioned, Guckert asks the same kind of question the FMSM asked Clinton every press conference and gets a spot on the evening news. The FMSM are promoting a divisive line. Ann Coulter calls out their aberrant behavior. You see this as the problem because of your bias.
The left has attacked every successful communicator for the right. The louder you get about people like Coulter the more credibility she must have. The leftist unethical are A OK, but let an effective communicator emerge on the right and they must be attacked.
I disagree. There are communicators from the right who are not offensive........people like Frist or Buchanan or McCain. I may not believe in their politics but I do not feel angry or slimed after they finish speaking. People like Hannity, Coulter, Rush and O'Reilly do your cause a disservice. They are the equivalent of the mullahs of Iran or the leaders of Hamas. Their language is a language of hate and defiance and arrogance. I am very sorry that you don't see it. If people like you and Tim Fowler who are the more reasonable members of the right don't object to the ugly spin coming from these distasteful people, then there can be no healing of the schism that exists between right and left.
LOL! You are listing communicators from the left who happen to bunk on the right. People like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry are the problem; the left needs more people like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman to be their spokespersons. The harsh left has caused the schism that exists between the central states and the extremist states. Democrats have been taken over by people who are not interested in unity.
McCain is a liberal. Rush Limbaugh is much closer to the heart of the Republican party than left of center John McCain. Pat Buchanan is a left-winger on the issue of freedom for the rest of the world. Is he an isolationist? If Zell Miller were the Democrat candidate, he might get my vote. I could never support a traitor like Kerry. Hillary Clinton is a Socialist; she will lead the Democrat party further into the desert. |
