Defense Spending

[Phil1111 905]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I do not hate Canada. I hate that we carry the burden while Canada and others go cheap. Here is more current data: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

OK I accept your data. But Canada is at a disadvantage. Canada has coast guard expenses that other NATO allies don't. Huge distances, northern climate, etc. Besides Canada is still recovering from the expense of war and our victory over the US.

"This view was summarised by Secretary of State James Monroe, who said "t might be necessary to invade Canada, not as an object of the war but as a means to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion"... President Madison claimed permanent annexation was not an objective, he recognised once acquired it would be "difficult to relinquish".^[78] A large faction in Congress actively advocated this policy, including Richard Mentor Johnson, who stated "I shall never die content until I see England's expulsion from North America and her territories incorporated into the United States"...

All these groups assumed American troops would be greeted as liberators, guaranteeing an easy conquest. Thomas Jefferson believed taking "...Canada this year, as far as...Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent"

Sounds familiar.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my points. I fully understand what you are trying to say. America spends more of it's wealth proportionally on its military than its allies and particularly Canada does. My point is that the US has become a particularly militaristic nation that spends so much more than it needs to. It is your level of spending which is out of line, not Canada's. 

Every year at budget time the only thing your Congress can agree on is a hefty increase for the military. Get your own house in order before coming after everyone else. In the end the only national defense budget your nation can control is its own.

I am in no way misinterpreting your points. You are simply deflecting attention from mine. Maybe, just maybe, we might be less militaristic if we were able to rely on our friends to pull their share of the load. And maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be forced into decline like the Romans, interbreeding like the Hapsburgs or, worse, telling friends we're tired of picking up the bill. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

10 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

OK I accept your data. But Canada is at a disadvantage. Canada has coast guard expenses that other NATO allies don't. Huge distances, northern climate, etc. Besides Canada is still recovering from the expense of war and our victory over the US.

That is like saying that because you live in the boonies you needed to buy a dog. Great but not our problem. On the other hand the defense of democracy is definitely a shared problem.

[gowlerk 1,901]

32 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

telling friends we're tired of picking up the bill. 

The world mostly wishes you would do that. The goal of every nation should be to spend as little as possible on military expenditures. Please start by dismantling your WMD, then lecture the rest of us. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The world mostly wishes you would do that. The goal of every nation should be to spend as little as possible on military expenditures. Please start by dismantling your WMD, then lecture the rest of us. 

Go tell the Ukrainians.

[gowlerk 1,901]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Go tell the Ukrainians.

They would also like to see the WMD gone from the equation. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

They would also like to see the WMD gone from the equation. 

That's the silliest bit yet. Why not be completely obtuse and argue the Ukrainians would wish that we still fought with spears and swords, Russians included?

[gowlerk 1,901]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's the silliest bit yet. Why not be completely obtuse and argue the Ukrainians would wish that we still fought with spears and swords, Russians included?

Well then back to basics if you insist. From my point of view the problem is not that we spend too little. The problem is that you spend too much. You keep using the inane metaphor of splitting a dinner bill evenly. But you want a filet and a fine merlot. We want a burger and a Coke. We don't want what you want and we don't want to pay for what you want. Do you get it now?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Well then back to basics if you insist. From my point of view the problem is not that we spend too little. The problem is that you spend too much. You keep using the inane metaphor of splitting a dinner bill evenly. But you want a filet and a fine merlot. We want a burger and a Coke. We don't want what you want and we don't want to pay for what you want. Do you get it now?

I never didn't get your position. So riddle me this: are you happy that America is able to support Ukraine with our supplies of military hardware or should we instead only be able to afford to send thoughts and prayers? And are you stating that in your opinion Canada already spends enough on defense?

[gowlerk 1,901]

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I never didn't get your position. So riddle me this: are you happy that America is able to support Ukraine with our supplies of military hardware or should we instead only be able to afford to send thoughts and prayers? And are you stating that in your opinion Canada already spends enough on defense?

Canada is contributing both material and training to Ukraine and has been since before the war, although I am sure not on a scale that would satisfy you. We are sending far more than Ts and Ps. I am happy that the western world is supporting Ukraine including the US. I am happy that Canada is taking in many refugees from there although it does make me feel a little queasy that we were not so generous with some other refugees who are not so light skinned. At this time I am satisfied with the stated plan of our government to increase defense spending, but I question their sincerity.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Canada is contributing both material and training to Ukraine and has been since before the war, although I am sure not on a scale that would satisfy you. We are sending far more than Ts and Ps. I am happy that the western world is supporting Ukraine including the US. I am happy that Canada is taking in many refugees from there although it does make me feel a little queasy that we were not so generous with some other refugees who are not so light skinned. At this time I am satisfied with the stated plan of our government to increase defense spending, but I question their sincerity.

Neato. Now the tricky bit, if the United States and the rest of NATO were equaling but not exceeding Canada's contribution to Ukraines defense, and that includes the level of sophistication of homeland developed war material, would Ukraine be in the position it is today 5 weeks post invasion?

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I do not hate Canada. I hate that we carry the burden while Canada and others go cheap. Here is more current data: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

How do you figure that equates to ‘carrying the load’? The total aid going to Ukraine is a drop in the bucket of the smallest budgets in that list. You want to spend trillions on carrier battle groups you’re welcome to go right ahead but don’t pretend it has the slightest fucking thing to do with the defence of any part of the NATO alliance, let alone Ukraine.

[kallend 1,619]

Let's not forget that a large fraction of every NATO member's defense expenditures ends up in the pockets of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, etc. and thus ends up in the USA.

[gowlerk 1,901]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Neato. Now the tricky bit, if the United States and the rest of NATO were equaling but not exceeding Canada's contribution to Ukraines defense, and that includes the level of sophistication of homeland developed war material, would Ukraine be in the position it is today 5 weeks post invasion?

IDK, if wish were horses would beggars ride? That is too far down in the weeds for me.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, gowlerk said:

IDK, if wish were horses would beggars ride? That is too far down in the weeds for me.

Baloney. You know and you know the answer is not a chance. You can't answer it honestly because that would lay bare the truth and all of your previous arguments would go flop. The real irony here has been your false conclusion that I am in favor of the US having a filet and fine merlot military when the clear thrust of my argument has consistently been that we spend far too much on defense to the exclusion of much needed social programs that our partners enjoy. I'd be thrilled to see a 300 or 400 billion dollar per year reduction in our defense bill but until the rest of the world kicks it up a good notch we're basically screwed.

[gowlerk 1,901]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'd be thrilled to see a 300 or 400 billion dollar per year reduction in our defense bill but until the rest of the world kicks it up a good notch we're basically screwed.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason China is spending more and that Russia spends so much is the threat they feel from the massive USA military? If the US spent less the nations that see the US as an adversary would as well. Have you ever heard of something called an "arms race"? The fact is you guys set the pace and make the rules. But not all the rules.

Edited March 30, 2022 by gowlerk

[wmw999 2,114]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Baloney. You know and you know the answer is not a chance. You can't answer it honestly because that would lay bare the truth and all of your previous arguments would go flop. The real irony here has been your false conclusion that I am in favor of the US having a filet and fine merlot military when the clear thrust of my argument has consistently been that we spend far too much on defense to the exclusion of much needed social programs that our partners enjoy. I'd be thrilled to see a 300 or 400 billion dollar per year reduction in our defense bill but until the rest of the world kicks it up a good notch we're basically screwed.

I think you're assuming that if the overall level of defense spending in the world doesn't stay the same, things will destabilize. That might be true, and it might be false. But for sure, increasing it only has one outcome -- the "other side(s)" will ramp theirs up to match. Because threat.

Since the world isn't stable anyway, maybe it is time to begin evaluating the overall amount of defense spending. Well, maybe after Putin dies...

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 905]

35 minutes ago, kallend said:

Let's not forget that a large fraction of every NATO member's defense expenditures ends up in the pockets of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, etc. and thus ends up in the USA.

Yes  Its almost a one way street. Those are very well paying jobs.

[Phil1111 905]

13 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

...Since the world isn't stable anyway, maybe it is time to begin evaluating the overall amount of defense spending. Well, maybe after Putin dies...

Wendy P.

Unfortunately President Xi seems to be headed the way of Putin. He is now president for life. His island building and support for Putin is straight out of dictatorship 101.

[gowlerk 1,901]

5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Unfortunately President Xi seems to be headed the way of Putin. He is now president for life. His island building and support for Putin is straight out of dictatorship 101.

Soon enough Joe will be complaining that Canada is not doing enough to defend the people of Taiwan.

[jakee 1,254]

35 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The real irony here has been your false conclusion that I am in favor of the US having a filet and fine merlot military when the clear thrust of my argument has consistently been that we spend far too much on defense to the exclusion of much needed social programs that our partners enjoy.

Then stop. You don’t need it and we don’t need it. The fact that you think the solution to being unhappy when your friends are happy is to make your friends unhappy too speaks volumes about you.

37 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'd be thrilled to see a 300 or 400 billion dollar per year reduction in our defense bill but until the rest of the world kicks it up a good notch we're basically screwed.

Baloney. You know that’s not the case, so why not speak honestly about the subject? The vast excesses of US military spending are completely unrelated to anything except domestic US politics. Your allies don’t need you to do it, you don’t need you to do it, it serves no real world purpose whatsoever.  If you want to reduce the US military budget by a huge amount then by god please do it. That would be amazing. And it would leave absolutely zero slack for anyone else to take up.

[gowlerk 1,901]

14 minutes ago, jakee said:

The vast excesses of US military spending are completely unrelated to anything except domestic US politics. Your allies don’t need you to do it, you don’t need you to do it, it serves no real world purpose whatsoever.  If you want to reduce the US military budget by a huge amount then by god please do it. That would be amazing. And it would leave absolutely zero slack for anyone else to take up.

That pretty much sums up the situation as I see it.

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

45 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I think you're assuming that if the overall level of defense spending in the world doesn't stay the same, things will destabilize. That might be true, and it might be false. But for sure, increasing it only has one outcome -- the "other side(s)" will ramp theirs up to match. Because threat.

Since the world isn't stable anyway, maybe it is time to begin evaluating the overall amount of defense spending. Well, maybe after Putin dies...

Wendy P.

Sure, or maybe not sure. But absolutely for sure is that unless our allies do more and better we won't be able to argue for a much needed and desired decrease. 

[gowlerk 1,901]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure, or maybe not sure. But absolutely for sure is that unless our allies do more and better we won't be able to argue for a much needed and desired decrease. 

So, what part of "America can only control its own spending, not its allies spending" are you having a hard time getting your head around? I said it once before in this thread, but clearly a repeat is needed. Get your own house in order. Make your argument where it needs to be made. At your politicians and your fellow citizens. America's errors are not the fault of others, they are yours to own and fix.

[jakee 1,254]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure, or maybe not sure. But absolutely for sure is that unless our allies do more and better we won't be able to argue for a much needed and desired decrease. 

Why is that absolutely for sure? Give us one reason. Because so far as logic goes it’s like saying because you have a dog, and because that dog crapped in your neighbours yard, Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by aliens.