Military Budgets

[Dingdongs]

I've noticed lately that Europe is really cutting its military budgets. It's getting to a point where the US is now Europe's defense bitch. Is that really right that Europe has such a low and ridiculous military budget? We've seen that Libya is requiring a ton of US aid because the Brits and French are running low on supplies and do not have the equipment the us does. Now there is talk in the US to slash the military budget. Can that actually be done while still being Europe's bitch?

[The Killa]

I agree on Obama basically saying "you're in libya? fine, you deal with it yourselves." The civilized world has to stop headlessly going into these wars. USA has much more important things to spend it's money on, and it doesn't consist of spending trillions on wars we can't even win.

[boyben]

I agree on Obama basically saying "you're in libya? fine, you deal with it yourselves." The civilized world has to stop headlessly going into these wars. USA has much more important things to spend it's money on, and it doesn't consist of spending trillions on wars we can't even win.

Okay, yes, I do agree with you that we need to be dealing with our own issue's before we go and cradle other countries, but do you really think Obama mean's it? I doubt it...

 

 

[The Killa]

If he doesn't I'll completely lose what little faith I had in him already. It would be political suicide for him to get more involved in it at this point. We're already only just starting to withdraw from other countries where our presence of such a large magnitude isn't immediately necessary, the American public would be up in arms if we started going into Libya and getting even more involved in it.

[vertical limit]

The US should relize that it is not the world's police, if you get what I am saying.

NATO has already said that it low on missiles, spending 7-8 rockets killing small innocent children.

 

My post may seem biased but come on, there is a civil war right now and who the f*ck does Clinton think she is telling the Leader Colonel Gaddafi to leave.

 

The following post was posten in "Why hasn't Nato bombed Syria Yet". But I will just post it hear.

 

 

Clinton replied back on The Leader Colonel Gaddafi's word, saying that he should leave.

 

 

Which Libyan supporters respond saying (note: this is translated from Libyan Arabic to English)

 

You want him to leave?? Is he sleeping at your parents so you can tell him to leave??

[boyben]

If he doesn't I'll completely lose what little faith I had in him already. It would be political suicide for him to get more involved in it at this point. We're already only just starting to withdraw from other countries where our presence of such a large magnitude isn't immediately necessary, the American public would be up in arms if we started going into Libya and getting even more involved in it.

I never even had faith in him.

 

You know how he said that he would not be sending ground troops into Libya?

 

Yeah, well, he already has them set to go and we should be hearing about it in the next couple of months here.

 

Never believe the media

[boyben]

The US should relize that it is not the world's police, if you get what I am saying.

NATO has already said that it low on missiles, spending 7-8 rockets killing small innocent children.

 

My post may seem biased but come on, there is a civil war right now and who the f*ck does Clinton think she is telling the Leader Colonel Gaddafi to leave.

 

The following post was posten in "Why hasn't Nato bombed Syria Yet". But I will just post it hear.

 

 

Clinton replied back on The Leader Colonel Gaddafi's word, saying that he should leave.

 

 

Which Libyan supporters respond saying (note: this is translated from Libyan Arabic to English)

 

You want him to leave?? Is he sleeping at your parents so you can tell him to leave??

(No meaning to double-post)

 

You're indeed correct, we are in a civil war.

 

This is the beginning of World War 3...

[vertical limit]

Thank you I appreciate it.

[sivispacem]

World War 3? What a bizarre statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. As for intervening in civil wars- look at Bosnia, look at Sudan- so many times has the international community been ridiculed for their inaction when events descend into genocide. Now I don't for one moment believe that any conflict has a true humanitarian justification, brutal self-interest is always the overriding concern, but I also don't buy into the idea that just because a nation is an outside observer in a civil conflict, they have no right to intervene. The way the global economy, political organisations and other transnational entities have expanded over the last halfI-century means that every little war or skirmish affects far more than just the main combatents. Its everyones business these days.

 

With relation to defence budgets and other comments made in the thread, I think that there is an element of one-upmanship in the US statements regarding the logistical support they afford to their allies. Personally, I see a lot of it as a rather coy little ploy by the US administration to reap the positive rewards from a military operation they have little involvement in whilst avoiding almost all the potential pitfalls. I am quite reliably informed that there is no shortage of weapons to anything like the extent implied by the US. As I said in the other thread, the reliance of at least the UK military on US equimprnt is surprisingly low, thanks to domestically produced precision-guided bombs and anti-tank missiles.

 

In relation to the original issue of defence budgets, I do feel that the cuts have hit the defence sector too hard- but my reason for this isn't in direct relation to the conflict in Libya. In the UK, the defence industry accounts for a massive proportion of all physical exports- in fact, something like 12% of the entire export economy is based on the aerospace and defence sector. With procurement grinding to a halt and little emphasis placed on aging and inferior equipment, the large defence contractors are having a sizable quantity of their innovative drive stifled by a lack of indirect government subsidy. The other problem is that, thanks to the financial collapse, the defence market has reverted to a much more national-driven environment, which has in turn caused nations like the US to abandon arguably superior and more suitable exported projects in favour of domestic ones that favour US based companies. It seems to be a replication of the defence market of the 1960s and 1970s, when US jingoism and aggressively self-centred buying tactics are actually damaging innovation both at home and abroad. Compare the TSR-2 project to the F-111, the cancellation of Zircon and the US point-blank refusal to consider the Meteor as a viable long-range replacement for the aging AMRAAM and the now-retired Phoenix...

[boyben]

How bizarre is it really? There are SIX war's going on right now, and not they're not even CONSTITUTIONAL...Were does that leave America to take order's from? The UN...

 

-Cough.

 

You can call me crazy but you people need to see through the bullsh*t.

[sivispacem]

 

How bizarre is it really? There are SIX war's going on right now, and not they're not even CONSTITUTIONAL...Were does that leave America to take order's from? The UN...

 

-Cough.

 

You can call me crazy but you people need to see through the bullsh*t.

I think you'd struggle to miss the point more if you'd actively been trying. Six given conflicts at any point in time isn't really that great a number. Look back to, say. 1975 as a given example:

 

Angolan Civil WarBasque ConflictBurmese Civil WarCommunist insurrection in MalaysiaCambodian Civil WarCambodian-Vietnamese WarChadian Civil WarDhofar RebellionEritrean War of IndependenceEthiopian Civil WarGuatemalan Civil WarIndian Maoist insurgencyIndonesian Invasion of East TimorLaotian Civil WarLebanese Civil WarMozambique War of IndependenceNamibian War of IndependenceNorthern Irish TroublesPapau ConflictPhilippine InsurgencyRhodesian Bush WarSecond Kurdish Iraqi WarTurkish Conflict in CyprusVietnam WarWestern Sahara War

 

 

Suddenly, the current state of the world doesn't look so troubled, does it?

 

That's not to mention the fact that almost every single conflict currently underway is not a regular armed struggle between two defined military powers, but an irregular conflict between military forces and unconventional combatants with little political motivation and very few large-scale battles. The previous World Wars have been caused by aggressive actions by multi-national alliances against each other, involving huge standing armed forces, massive centralised political and ideological motivators and vast numbers of individual nations. The current military situation quite literally couldn't be further from that.

 

There is little to no chance of any "third world war" sparking in the near future. No state actor, even one as deranged as the DPRK, would willingly risk conflict, given that the current economic and socio-political state of the international community dictates each individual nation be heavily dependent on others for their sustenance and prosperity. No nation will start a large-scale conflict as by doing so they will only seek to damage their own interests.

[boyben]

How bizarre is it really? There are SIX war's going on right now, and not they're not even CONSTITUTIONAL...Were does that leave America to take order's from? The UN...

 

-Cough.

 

You can call me crazy but you people need to see through the bullsh*t.

I think you'd struggle to miss the point more if you'd actively been trying. Six given conflicts at any point in time isn't really that great a number. Look back to, say. 1975 as a given example:

 

Angolan Civil WarBasque ConflictBurmese Civil WarCommunist insurrection in MalaysiaCambodian Civil WarCambodian-Vietnamese WarChadian Civil WarDhofar RebellionEritrean War of IndependenceEthiopian Civil WarGuatemalan Civil WarIndian Maoist insurgencyIndonesian Invasion of East TimorLaotian Civil WarLebanese Civil WarMozambique War of IndependenceNamibian War of IndependenceNorthern Irish TroublesPapau ConflictPhilippine InsurgencyRhodesian Bush WarSecond Kurdish Iraqi WarTurkish Conflict in CyprusVietnam WarWestern Sahara War

 

 

Suddenly, the current state of the world doesn't look so troubled, does it?

 

That's not to mention the fact that almost every single conflict currently underway is not a regular armed struggle between two defined military powers, but an irregular conflict between military forces and unconventional combatants with little political motivation and very few large-scale battles. The previous World Wars have been caused by aggressive actions by multi-national alliances against each other, involving huge standing armed forces, massive centralised political and ideological motivators and vast numbers of individual nations. The current military situation quite literally couldn't be further from that.

 

There is little to no chance of any "third world war" sparking in the near future. No state actor, even one as deranged as the DPRK, would willingly risk conflict, given that the current economic and socio-political state of the international community dictates each individual nation be heavily dependent on others for their sustenance and prosperity. No nation will start a large-scale conflict as by doing so they will only seek to damage their own interests.

Well, go listen to some Coast to Coast/Alex Jones and tell me if everything they say also doesn't make any sense

[Tom Toole]

hmmm...

 

wikipedia

 

list of wars 1970-1980

ongoing military conflicts

 

I mean I don't think the "Dhofar Rebellion" is even considered in wikipedia as a "war"...

 

And there are definitely way more than 6 wars going on today. But I guess that also depends on the meaning of "war" - if you only count conflicts between two "countries"...

 

Europe's military budget... I'm actually in favor of cutting military budgets in general, having less spending on military and more spending on education and research.

[sivispacem]

 

Well, go listen to some Coast to Coast/Alex Jones and tell me if everything they say also doesn't make any sense

Oh yes, because I'm likely to trust the opinions of mildly delusion conspiracy theorists over the entire academic and political communities. Wasn't Jones one of the champions of the whole "New World Order" saga that essentially just comes from a complete misinterpretation of a phrase that's been used for quite literally decades to describe any point in time at which a drastic political or social upheaval has taken place. The rise of Communism was a "new world order". The fall of the Soviet Union and the fragmentation of the great powers was a "new world order". To some extent, you could even describe the politicisation of radical Islam as a new world order. There's nothing remotely conspiratorial about it.

 

Seriously, you should do some proper research and form your own opinions rather than recycling the bizarre ramblings of tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists.

 

 

hmmm...

 

wikipedia

 

list of wars 1970-1980

ongoing military conflicts

 

I mean I don't think the "Dhofar Rebellion" is even considered in wikipedia as a "war"...

 

And there are definitely way more than 6 wars going on today. But I guess that also depends on the meaning of "war" - if you only count conflicts between two "countries"...

Remember, you've got to check the finishing dates as well as starting ones. Conflicts that had started in the 1960s are still currently ongoing. You're right, though, first one has to define what one is referring to as a "conflict". For instance, is what is currently unfolding in Syria a "conflict"? Well, that depends on your definition. Speaking of definitions

 

 

2. A prolonged armed struggle

- overseas conflicts

 

 

3. a fight, battle, or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle; strife.

 

Or, it can be used interchangeably with "war", which is...

 

 

...a state of armed and often prolonged conflict carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality

 

of course, with the latter, one needs to identify what constitutes "extreme aggression", "prolonged" and "high morality", so it actually makes things more difficult rather than easier. But, in any case, here are some identifying features.

 

> Needs two or more groups, either state or non-state actors.

> Requires at least one group to be armed.

> Must occur over a tangible period of time.

> Produces fatalities that would not have otherwise occurred.

 

Now, does the Dhofar rebellion meet those criteria? Well, seen as OnWar include it in their "armed conflict database" then it's fair to assume that it does. Of course, defining anything creates it's own problems- for instance, I try and avoid the use of the word "War" as a descriptive noun sheerly because it both implies a declaration of war, which many armed conflicts do not have, and it is also a rather loaded term in terms of implying a larger scale and longevity than is often the case. Hence the use of "conflict".

 

Similarly, many global powers try and pass off many of their military operations as "outside of conflict"; claiming that conflicts are required to have two defined and therefore organised combatants- or even must require the armed forces of two nation states- in order to "count"- well, the very nature of the conflict against al-Qaeda disproves that, but yes, your right, it really does depend on what you start classing as a "conflict".

 

Then we get onto even more complex details- current operations in Iraq, for instance. Is there currently a war going on in Iraq? The instinctive answer would be "yes" but the same logic that denies Dhofar the status of a "conflict" will similarly deny Iraq the status of one. In fact, there's a pretty convincing argument that, due to the absence of foreign military power in a combat role in Iraq, Dhofar is actually more typical of a traditional "war".

 

Anyway, the entire issue comes down to semantics. I have no doubt that there are more than six armed conflicts underway across the world- off the top of my head, Libya, Afghanistan, FATA region of Pakistan, Maoist insurgency in India, Dagestan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan- plus more low-intensity conflicts elsewhere. The point I was making is that 2011 is no way atypical in terms of the number of armed conflicts underway. In fact, on the contrary- I would hazard a guess that 1975 was a significantly more bloody year than 2011 in terms of death toll from conflict.

Edited June 27, 2011 by sivispacem

[boyben]

I'll just leave this topic be, Were obviously way off topic and you people probably think I'ma ignorant fool. My best advice to you is to be ready when everything goes down

[Dingdongs]

Europe's military budget... I'm actually in favor of cutting military budgets in general, having less spending on military and more spending on education and research.

Right, but do you really like that European countries are leaching off the US and UK (moreso the US) for military protection since most European countries now are not even spending in the 10 billions on military?

[Typhus]

The military budget should never be cut. A strong nation needs a strong army. And our strength does indeed give us certain rights, such as the right to intervene in situations that are so repugnant to our common values that we cannot stomach the thought of letting it continue. That does not mean that we should invade countires left, right and centre. But the accusations of neo-colonialism aimed at the Libyan intervention are a f*cking joke. Just as they were when the French disposed of Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast.

 

Let us say that a French or English bomber takes out Gaddafi. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Is Libya a better place for his death?

And, considering how much blood has been spilt in his name, I would have to argue that Libya would be better off without Gaddafi. You see, all over the world there are similar situations and if we can do a little good here and a little good there, who is harmed?

 

I believe a great many of you were probably soured on the notion of humanitarian intervention based on the Iraq conflict. But try to understand that Iraq was, more than anything else, a result of Bush's mental instability and growing hubris. The object was not oil but rather conquest. He wanted to turn the Iraqi's into good little Americans. It was his divine mission, that's how he probably saw it. He was insane, I believed it then and I believe it now. But the actions of one sick puppy should not mean that our military sits on their hands whilst they can be doing some good.

 

Humanitarianism is a noble cause and it doesn't mean trying to make every nation a democracy, but is simply a way of levelling the playing field so some despot can't just massacre his own people, which is what always happens when we don't get involved. Face it, some people have neither the inclination nor the ability to defend themselves. Someone has to stand up for common decency.

[Tom Toole]

Europe's military budget... I'm actually in favor of cutting military budgets in general, having less spending on military and more spending on education and research.

Right, but do you really like that European countries are leaching off the US and UK (moreso the US) for military protection since most European countries now are not even spending in the 10 billions on military?

 

 

Hmmm... "leeching off the US and UK"? I really wonder whether spending a lot on military is worthwhile - Sure you can buy some new planes, research something, but do you really need to spend that much money all the time? I don't so.

 

 

Someone has to stand up for common decency.

It doesn't help that the West has basically created the situations that they now have to "heroically" defuse.

 

That's why there's the accusation of Neo-colonialism - because it's completely arbitrary - why Libya but not Bahrain? Because Libya is a weak nation (seems to have something to do with chinese oil interests too).

 

So... the story of the heroic american military going to save the world doesn't cut it.

 

[sivispacem]

 

That's why there's the accusation of Neo-colonialism - because it's completely arbitrary - why Libya but not Bahrain? Because Libya is a weak nation (seems to have something to do with chinese oil interests too).

Uhhh, you want to know why Libya and not Bahrain?

 

1) Libya's popular uprising was supported by a majority of the population. By this very fact, Gadaffi had lost his mandate to govern and also his mandate for the legitimate use of force inside his borders. The same is not true of Bahrain where protests have been on a much, much smaller scale, and with vastly less public support. In fact, no uprising in the region has even come close to the level of violence seen in Libya

 

2) Gadaffi has engaged in a campaign of summary executions, intentional use of military force against civilian targets, use of cluster bombs and other munitions of dubious legality when fired into urban areas, and the hiring of foreign mercenaries to oppress his own people. Not to mention threats of, and attempts at, genocide. Again, compare with Bahrain, even with Syria- the extent and severity of events is far greater. Hence, for instance, the warrant for his arrest on a charge of crimes against humanity.

 

3) Bahrain is currently full of Saudi Arabian troops, armoured vehicles and tanks, assisting the government in suppressing dissent. Western involvement in the nation is likely to be enormously damaging for our interests in the region due to the fact that we would come up against the Saudi military machine. Even more importantly, Saudi Arabia is the only reasonable buffer against Iran, and the only other Arab nation in the region with the military power to be a true world player. It's mutually beneficial to let the Saudis do whatever they damn well please.

 

4) In relation to above, Bahrain has a large Shia majority, approximately half of the entire country's population. This fact alone makes interference in their interests a perilous slope. Whilst they've always had very positive relations with the West, there is a growing pro-Islamist, pro-Iranian undercurrent that has been exacerbated both by Western military interventions across the region, and by the Saudi military presence in Bahrain. If Bahrain undergoes an Islamic revolution or aligns itself with the pro-Iranian bloc by popular opinion, the damage it will do to the stability of the region would be enormous. Iran are about to lose Syria as their conduit of influence in the region, their replacement with a vastly more wealthy and resource-rich nation would be a disaster.

 

 

Notwithstanding, there is always an overriding element of brutal self-interest in any military operation. Humanitarianism is just the public face of many of these interventions, there is always a deeper, more selfish justification. But to label that as neo-Colonialism is just absurd. What nation doesn't want to be able to build allies who may be of economic or political value to them in the future? What nation doesn't want to see it's problems removed, either by military action or popular uprising? What nation doesn't want to prevent a shift in the balance of power towards and adversary?

 

It might also be worth mentioning, as I have several times before and in several other threads, that the US military involvement in these operations as they currently stand lies somewhere between small and nonexistent. The UK and France are doing an enormous amount of the physical combat operations- the US are just milking their early involvement and logistical support to make political gains (both at home and regionally) whilst at the same time keeping far enough from the action to avoid a public backlash.

 

 

Oh, and for what it's worth, military conflict and defence funding has been the primary, overriding driving force behind almost every positive development since the Industrial Revolution. The aerospace and defence market is heavily intertwined with government defence budgets and significant cuts in one damage growth in the other. There is far more at stake than buying or selling a "few planes" as you put it- we're talking quite large proportions of national economies. 15-20% in the UK, 10% in France...I would go so far as to say that the A&D market in the UK is the only one that survived the financial crisis with any kind of stability. It's the back-bone of the British economy.

Edited June 29, 2011 by sivispacem

[Dingdongs]

Silver, there are these posters posting pro libyan propaganda all over the internet. I've seen a few of them on a political website I use. One of them made a topic titled "Qaddafi is our loyal friend, do not kill him, a plea for his life" and the other was "Kill gaddafi and nuclear weapons will go haywire".