Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (113940)	9/4/2003 6:52:21 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<There's only one nation which commands the resources, military and economic, to hold such a position.. And that's the US> We can't afford 400-500B$ deficits indefinitely. Our economy is about 25% of the global total, yet we spend as much on our military, as the rest of the world put together. That level of effort, and the disparity between US and non-US military funding, is unsustainable. Would you prefer raising taxes by 400B$, cutting non-military programs by that amount.........or scaling back our Global Reach? Don't try to finesse this, those are the choices. One of the disquieting un-intended consequences of 9/11, is that all the second-ranking powers are spending more on their military, and adopting more aggressive and independent military doctrines: Japan is changing their Constitution, to make it easier to resume their former habit of Wars of Aggression. They are also quietly acquiring the materials and technologies, so they can quickly assemble nuclear weapons, if they ever want to. The U.S. may have caused the death of NATO, by going to Baghdad. An independent European military policy will require an independent ability to Project Force, to go to places like Bosnia, or maybe even Afghanistan. The Greens and Socialists will hold their noses, and vote for higher defense budgets. This moment of U.S. Hegemony is transitory. Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. - Mahatma Gandhi

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (113940)	9/7/2003 8:43:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Any UN force will require an supreme commander, just as UN forces during the Korean War had MacArthur...> Hmmm, that sounds a fun job. I'll take it on. Also, you're not quite right that only one country has the necessary resources to take it on as a "leader". As with so much in the world, a co-operative effort is more effective. USA military employees are simply too expensive. Chinese, Indian and Pakistani forces would be much, much cheaper, giving a far bigger bang for the buck. But USA arms technology is no doubt far better than competing equipment, so the USA could supply that. With me in charge, we won't need USS Raygun, but we'd need USS Enterprise. The military would become much more of a police force, looking for the Osama, Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski type rather than the massed, armed to the teeth, society-driven rank and file 1812 Overture style conflicts. Mqurice PS With all those expensive USA soldiers in Iraq, there is a massive transfer of funds going on to the locals. No wonder they don't want the USA to leave, even apart from the USA soldiers keeping the bad old days of Saddam at bay.