What we spend on war globally

by Tim Sun Jan 08, 2006 19:13

America is terrorist number one, hands down and no doubt. Since terrorism is war, and war is is the source of man made terrorism, and there is no match on the planet for the six overkill capacity that has eminated from this super power one, that has spent seven trillion dollars on weapons of mass destruction since 1945, and since it has led the arms race now for well over one quarter of a century, and treats laisse Faire capitalist democracy as a hinderence, and all other governments as inferiors, it has come full circle to step into the footsteps of what nazis germany thinks of superiority wins, reads conquor the world again and blame all others, caring not for their sovereignty , independance, or culture, economics, or religion, only that they obey super power one. War itself is the enemy, and the first cdn. division knows it ,and parades that truth to the world. There is nothing universally or planetwide that is worse than a nuclear war , and America is active in two of them now. Du is killing the people and soldiers that delivers it , and is called Gulf war syndrome. No there is and always will be just and unjust violence and America is the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet and is in an irretrevable crisis of its own worst enemy making. End war not endleless wars. Marxism insists the purpose of the technology is to improve life on earth and living conditions , not to destroy the living world by insiting nations and peoples to destroy one and the other. Vote Cindy Shehan and Mary Kelly for presidenta.

by James - anti-work, socialise-party Sun Jan 08, 2006 18:45 themarshometer at hotmail dot com

"Just as the defeat in Vietnam invited the Soviet Union to new agressions and new nuclear blackmail against the world also a defeat in Iraq will mean that any hope of replacing regimes in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordon and Pakistan will be impossible." Do you really think Saudi Arabia is on cowboy georges global regime change rollercoaster hitlist?It would lead to an awful lot of frosty silences at pappy bush's dinner parties and business meetings i would think.Still on a positive note dubya's just announced his strategy for the imminent withdrawal of over 70% of the u.s. forces stationed there, the plan it seems is "were going through Iran"*. *Qoutes maybe slightly made up.

by ($/€) Sat Jan 07, 2006 17:04

how much "we earn on war".

Since that is the golden rule of capitalism, not a penny spent without the hope of a farthing's profit. Certainly reading a back issue (Dec 12) of the Irish Times which someone brought over to europe's mainland where I live, when Shannon broke into a fullpage, the headline was "Military business booms at Shannon". Underneath our attention to "extra-ordinary rendition" and "military transfers" put my Tim H. was dismally formatted by the IT next to a piece entitled "Tales of toture from an infantile leftist fantasyland". Evidently enough farthings are made on Ireland's involvement/ speculation. Yet apparantly they don't pay for hospital beds, olympic swimming pools, or even a Luas or Tunnel that's value for money.

& then looking to bilateral and other assistance offered the states of South America, certainly the one sector which has risen in value during the recent "left European" interest in the continent as a counterbalance to "US" hegomony has been focussed on military expenditure. More military orders have been made then ever before. Its a good time to be a soldier again, and offers the easiest most secure employment to many Latin Americans.
European states (notably Spain) have given more bullets and planes and "military assistance" to states such as Venezuela _and_ Colombia than US military assitance.

Not even touching the presence of Italian, UK and French arms suppliers in Latin America or Africa.

I reckon the figure above is close to half of what we "earn on war".
http://www.caat.org.uk

by Tom Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:10

"If a government's first duty is to prevent its citizens from being attacked, then it is the citizens primal duty to prevent attack. Therefore society exists in order to make war."

Society does not exist in order to make war society rather exists for its own sake.
A government's first duty is to protect society.
But making war is not the only duty of government.

"Look at Bush vs Hussein. Saddam knew Bush would annihialate his people and country, George knew it too, and despite international calls for discussion and rationalisation, George went and demonstrated what was widely known, that he'd win. All this despite Iraq having no wmd's and begging not to be invaded."

Saddam gambled that America still haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam did not have the stomach to fight a prolonged war and he may well be proved right.
If America pull out of Iraq now just as the Iraqi people have voted for a consitution and their first democratic parliament in generations then America cannot be counted on to force tyrannies and dictatorships aside and bring freedom to oppressed people.
9/11 convinced the American people for a time that they could no longer sit back in blissful complacency while threats gathered beyond their shores. Afghanistan was an easy victory and the overthrow of Saddam was achieved with spectacularly low casualties.
However to defeat Al-Qaeda worldwide and the ingrained Islamic fundementalist ideology in the Middle East requires a will of steel and that war means casualties.
Just as the defeat in Vietnam invited the Soviet Union to new agressions and new nuclear blackmail against the world also a defeat in Iraq will mean that any hope of replacing regimes in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordon and Pakistan will be impossible. In fact Al-Qaeda will expand its terrorism campaign against those unstable regimes in the pursuit of establishing an Islamic empire and will extend its murderous campaign into Europe and mainland America.

"Terrorism is on the rise, and again this is opinion based, America is the terrorist."

Is it terrorism to overthrow the Taliban, eliminated terrorist training camps and bring freedom and democracy to the people of Afghanistan? Is it terrorism to overthrow the fascist dictator Saddam Hussein and bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq? Is it terrorism to hunt down Al-Qaeda suspects, put surveillance on their trail, detain them and interrogate them for information about planned attacks and to the extent of their networks?

If you think war is necesscary then you must see that these present wars certainly are.

by Seán Ryan Fri Jan 06, 2006 20:57

Hi Tom.

I've read your comment, I think you have a keen insight into the mechanism of war. But I think your justification for it is a little off.

Before I say why, I'd like to point out that I'm not a pacifist and I do believe that sometimes a war can be necessary.

I think your argument, that a government's first duty is to protect society from attack, well I think that it's misguided, and I think it taints the rest of the logical argument that you've made.

If a government's first duty is to prevent its citizens from being attacked, then it is the citizens primal duty to prevent attack. Therefore society exists in order to make war.

This line of reasoning does not ring true for me. And I admit my argument is opinion based only.

But to me, society is about association firstly, if it is about disassociation then society is a greater paradox than has been previously reckoned.

When you say that the best way to prevent war is to demonstrate to your enemy that you can beat him, I think you follow the same line of logic again.

Look at Bush vs Hussein. Saddam knew Bush would annihialate his people and country, George knew it too, and despite international calls for discussion and rationalisation, George went and demonstrated what was widely known, that he'd win. All this despite Iraq having no wmd's and begging not to be invaded.

The best way to prevent war is not to start one.

Terrorism is on the rise, and again this is opinion based, America is the terrorist.

And to get back to the original article.....

When the USA first invaded Afghanistan, they were spending close to $billion a day, specifically on the war.

Sláinte,

Seán Ryan

by Raymond McInerney - Global Country of World Peace Fri Jan 06, 2006 14:56 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie Limerick

‘Military is purposeful only if it has the indomitable power of invincibility, with the natural ability to prevent the birth of an enemy.'

by Tom Fri Jan 06, 2006 14:36

The first responsibility of a government is to protect a nation from attack. A landlocked nation is always faced with defending its borders from invasion - if it is a s nation bordered by mountains this requires concentrating forces at various stategic entry points.
If a nation is an island coastal defence is multiplied by the fact that an invader must make a seaborne attack.
But if a nation is landlocked with long borders and ease of entry then it requires permanent outposts on its frontiers with larger forces based in the interior ready to meet an invader.
Modern warfare changes fast - to effectively defend a nation, armed forces need the most modern weapons to fight on land and sea and in the air combined with sound intelligence on the enemy, his tactics and order of battle.
That means constant re-arming, upgrading and training to replace obsolete equipment, tactics and the turnover of personnel and a constant vigilance by intelligence gathering forces.
Today with the rise of international terrorism the responsibility to protect free democratic nations is greater.
It is often said that peace is not merely the absence of war - therefore there has never been a period in history without conflict.
The dreams of Isaiah about hammering swords into ploughshares are nobles aspirations but nations are faced with intractable enemies. Peace treatries are merely lulls before the commencement of the next conflict. When nations drop their defences they invite attack and there is never a defence that is ever strong enough.
Indeed offence has often proven to be the best defence and to secure the peace is often to prepare for war.
The best way to prevent war from occurring is demonstrate to your enemy your ability to defeat him. It is only the best way because generally it forces the enemy to back down however not always.
Wars are inevitable.
If you must fight fight to win

by observer2 Fri Jan 06, 2006 13:35

Do these figures represent spending on war or do they represent global military spending?

for example currently there are large numbers of troops serving with the U.N , surely the money spent on them could not be described as "spending on war", especially as they are mostly peacekeepers.

Money spent on R.A.F search and rescue helicopters, as another example, which are used to save lives/recover bodies at sea could not be included as war spending yet their cost would also be included in these figures.

yet another example is our own navy, which is in fact largely a fishery protection service , yet it would be included as military spending and could hardly be described as "war spending"

While spending on military globally is definately way over what is needed for defensive purposes, inaccurate statements such as the one printed above does nothing except cause confusion. We need always be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, some military spending is positive and constructive and it is only the most deluded of peaceniks that would describe it as " war spending"

by Justin Morahan Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:36

That should have been $14,350,426,750 but by now it should have gone up to $14,362,000,000