For the chickenhawks to munch on

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 17, 2003, 10:12 pm

A summary of this article by Charley Reese, a conservative, mind you, for all the whiny fucks who will no doubt bitch and moan about biased sources, etc.

12 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and without a credible enemy in sight we are still spending nearly $400 billion annually on defense. It is not really the cost of defense, but rather the cost of an empire.

Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion worth of weaponry to states around the world. Keep this in mind when you hear Washington politicians decry the proliferation of weapons such as air-to-ground missiles. We've exported more than two-and-a-half times as many weapons as the No. 2 and No. 3 states, the United Kingdom and Russia, respectively.

In 1999, the United States supplied arms or military technology to 92 percent of all the conflicts around the globe. This military largesse often goes to nondemocratic countries with abominable human-rights records.

Our homegrown criminals killed 13,000 people, or four times as many as the terrorists. Police departments didn't get a $30 billion budget increase.

Scaring the home folks with "enemies at the gates" is the oldest ploy in human history for justifying an all-powerful government. Give us your money and your liberty, and we will protect you from the barbarians. Of course, the supply of barbarians proves to be infinite, for as soon as one enemy is defeated or collapses, another is manufactured.

Unless we find a way to reverse course and return to our republican ways, our imperial government will collapse under the weight of its own profligate spending and corruption. A government that lies, keeps secrets, spies on its own people and tries to control every aspect of their lives is a far cry from the American republic that existed from 1787 to 1865.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 17, 2003, 11:25 pm

Bahh. Bait and switch. I was expecting hot teen boys....

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 17, 2003, 11:27 pm

12 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and without a credible enemy in sight we are still spending nearly $400 billion annually on defense.

Not sure what others think, but this statement seems to imply that we are spending nearly 400 billion annually on defense and have been for some time, which does not appear to be the case.

1994 281,642
1995 272,066
1996 265,753
1997 270,505
1998 268,456
1999 274,873
2000 294,495
2001 305,500
2002 348,555
2003(est) 376,286
2004(est) 390,419

source: (note that its an excel file, you'll need excel or a reader)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... st03z1.xls

Then in the next paragraph he shifts from talking annually to cumulative since 1992. Sure he can use either but going right from one to the other that sharply can be misleading (you might start thinking we are exporting 142 billion per year, rather than an average if 14 billion). I can only assuming he is talking here about weapon exports (ie we are being paid for them). Granted, some of these I am sure are going to some scumbags, but it would be interesting to see breakdowns on how much is going where etc.

I have my own concerns about our current aggressive foriegn policy stance, but Mr. Reese's article at least from the part quoted seems too vague and a little too loose with numbers for my taste. If I can I'll check out the whole article sometime but everytime I tried linking too it I got a page not found.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 12:58 am

Chmee wrote:Not sure what others think, but this statement seems to imply that we are spending nearly 400 billion annually on defense and have been for some time, which does not appear to be the case.

The wording is a bit misleading on that statement. Reese definitely could have been more clear on it, but I don’t think he would blindly say that we’ve spent 400 billion a year for the past 12 years and expect anyone to take him seriously. “Still” is simply meant to imply that there’s been no other viable threat for 12 years to warrant military spending on the scale of the Reagan cold war era.

I remember reading somewhere on PNAC’s website describing the desire to set defense spending at 3.8% of the GDP. Supposedly this puts the figure at ~360 billion USD (I see yours quotes 376) , which Reese rounded up for his argument.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 1:01 am

but everytime I tried linking too it I got a page not found.

My bad, try this one instead.

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20021209/index.php

Tegellan · Post by **Tegellan** » August 18, 2003, 3:12 am

It's a conspiracy!

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 5:44 am

It's a conspiracy!

Tinfoil hat retort #1 out of the way. Any others looking to knock Captain Irrelevant off the pedestal?

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » August 18, 2003, 6:30 am

A lot of that spending is going towards new Technolgy and upkeep of the stuff we already have. The military is smaller than it was in Regans days. Im not gonna say some of that isn't spent on stupid shit thats always going to happen.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 18, 2003, 8:59 am

Why don't you spend some of your free time today looking up how much money in aid we are sending out of the US to 3rd world countries that cna't feed themselves. When you have that number in your liberal little mind, then I will come back and have a discussion with you. Try to hop off your little agenda for a half hour or so today and take care of this eh?

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 18, 2003, 9:28 am

A compelling argument, I've seen the light....

I vote we cut all defense spending now, discharge everyone from the military and send them home and use that money to buy the "hearts and minds" of every country in the world.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 9:47 am

After reading 9 very interesting columns from this guy, I have come to the conclussion that everything he said is his opinion. Orlando must be proud.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 18, 2003, 9:50 am

Why don't you spend some of your free time today looking up how much money in aid we are sending out of the US to 3rd world countries that cna't feed themselves

As a percentage of GNP the US donates the lowest amount to poor countries of all the developed nations so climb off that high horse.

Typing "US foreign aid as a percentage of GNP" and "Get Lucky" gave me:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/foreignaid.html

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 10:02 am

vn_Tanc wrote:
Why don't you spend some of your free time today looking up how much money in aid we are sending out of the US to 3rd world countries that cna't feed themselves
As a percentage of GNP the US donates the lowest amount to poor countries of all the developed nations so climb off that high horse.

Typing "US foreign aid as a percentage of GNP" and "Get Lucky" gave me:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/foreignaid.html

Percentage!! here let me help you reach for straws, Did you read the whole article sir?

"In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid,"

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 18, 2003, 10:04 am

What difference is that when the same article says:

In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid

Yeah, maybe it's the smallest percentage but it's still more than anyone else is throwing around.

I know, it goes on to say that we were 2nd to Japan for a long time but how much different is Japan's GNP versus the US'?

EDIT: Cart beat me too it...that should show you what a glaring error it actually is...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 18, 2003, 10:16 am

Percentage my ass. In 2000, the US spent $32 billion on state and foreign affairs. Only once ever has any country spent more than the United States on aid. That was Japan. I don't see any Japanese posters here, so you can shut your ass and stop blowing smoke out of it. $32 billion dollars would put an awful lot of police on the streets. Or a lot of food on plates here. Or a lot of plane/boat tickets for people to head to whatever country they want to emmigrate to.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 18, 2003, 10:24 am

Let me also throw another number out here for you Mr Percentage. The US only spend 3% of it GNP on the military. So if you want to throw things out as percentages, you can do it both ways.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 10:28 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Let me also throw another number out here for you Mr Percentage. The US only spend 3% of it GNP on the military. So if you want to throw things out as percentages, you can do it both ways.

No you cant because thats not fair.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 18, 2003, 11:32 am

2003:
Defence: 376
Social security: 478
Medicare 244
Health: 223

400 on defence without comparison slants the impression

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 11:35 am

No one has addressed the original point of the article which is why the fuck are military expenditures still as high as they are considering the fact that there is no genuine threat to the US that can challenge its place as the world's hegemonic power?

The only sensible reason is that US foreign policy is centered on maintaining this status quo for as long as possible. Perfectly understandable from a logic standpoint.

However, the means by which they are done so will come back to bite the US in the ass (9/11's motives had everything to do with US backing of a certain shitpile of a racist country with 60+ UN violations).

Toppling democratic governments and installing friendly puppets/dictators which allow mass exploitation of their countries' resources (read Iran, Chile) and pre-emptively attacking another sovereign nation in the guise of "liberation", WMDs, and links to Al-Queda will eventually prove counterproductive to the maintaining the status quo as well.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 18, 2003, 11:38 am

You can argue all you like all I did was post a bald fact to counter your crowing about how generous your country is. Yeah it's great that you're giving so much money, it really is. Go you. But I have more respect for someone giving $1 out of their last $5 than I do for someone giving $1000 when they have $1000000 in disposable income. In terms of how much good it does there is no argument; I'm talking about the generosity on display here.

The US's aid also comes with the greatest number of strings attached. A good analysis of international aid and current practices for the use thereof can be found in "George Soros on Globalization". I suggest you read it.

Now how about we get back to the discussion about governments building up new bogeymen all the time to maintain support for military spending? Or are you all less sure of yourselves on that topic?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 18, 2003, 11:48 am

no genuine threat to the US that can challenge its place as the world's hegemonic power?

Yes, obviously the world is now a place of peace and understanding with the Soviet power bloc gone.

The best way to deter attack from an organized force is to assure absolute superiority on the battlefield. What's going to be more of a challenge to the U.S. in the future is learning how to discourage terrorist-style attacks. Not at all sure the millitary is the way to deal with those.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 11:54 am

"No one has addressed the original point of the article which is why the fuck are military expenditures still as high as they are considering the fact that there is no genuine threat to the US that can challenge its place as the world's hegemonic power?"

There you go Dumb Ass you answered your own question you BackWoods Off eating piece of fly shit.

The United States has a large defense budget becuase we dont use cheap ass slingshots to stay ready.
We use the latest technology and keep improving ourselves hell I say "Save a buck drop a nuke".

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 18, 2003, 12:01 pm

The only thing I am less sure of is of you being able to mantain a non-biased view of the spending of a government that is nearly identical to your own. If you would like me to dissect the UK's spending, that information can be thrown out there for you as well.

The bottom line is that just maintaining the militray of the US would be an enormous expense. As old equipment becomes obsolete, you have to replace it or repair it. You also have to pay the members of the military. These costs are going to go up every single year just by maintaining current levels (think inflation here. I can post you a definition if you struggle). There has also been a push to go more high tech and to examine more lethal weapons and also explore non-lethal weaponry.

Quite honestly, the best way to keep peace is to be the unquestionable baddest motherfucker on the planet. If we were in a position of weakness, we would be as open to attack as anyone else.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 12:15 pm

Yes, obviously the world is now a place of peace and understanding with the Soviet power bloc gone.

Duh...

Where exactly did I ever say that it was? Can you name me one single country which can come even remotely close to the former USSR in terms of challenging the US? And do these countries have any agenda which are actively trying to impose themselves into the US's sphere of influence?

Putting 2 bit dictators like Kim Il Jong, Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein in their place doesn't take a budget nearing 400 billion USD (unless you're going to occupy them).

The best way to deter attack from an organized force is to assure absolute superiority on the battlefield. What's going to be more of a challenge to the U.S. in the future is learning how to discourage terrorist-style attacks. Not at all sure the millitary is the way to deal with those.

Your last sentence contradicts your first two.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 12:24 pm

Cartalas aka Mr. 47 wrote:
There you go Dumb Ass you answered your own question you BackWoods Off eating piece of fly shit.

The United States has a large defense budget becuase we dont use cheap ass slingshots to stay ready.
We use the latest technology and keep improving ourselves hell I say "Save a buck drop a nuke".

There is no other country that even remotely devotes as many resources to their respective defense budgets as the US can nor are there any other countries that can even come remotely close to sustaining an arms race with the US. The US defense budget is more than the rest of the world's combined. Even if the US were to quarter its defense budget, its technology would still be outpacing all others by light years.

So kindly fuck off and continue breeding your army of inbred retards like a good hick.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 18, 2003, 12:27 pm

No sir, it doesn't. I really wish you would learn to read. These little side trips into your idiocy are distracting.

So, since there isn't a single country that amounts to the threat the Soviet Union did, we should scale back defense?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Let me give you a clue. it requires a hell of a lot more resources to play firefighter for the fucking world in three or four different places at once than it ever took to keep Russia at bay. Christ, the timing of the flare-up with the DPRK should be example enough as to why we can't cut back our defensive forces.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 18, 2003, 12:29 pm

OK so lemme check if I'm reading this right. Your defence budget is nearly $400bn and rising. This was raised as a possible concern seeing as there is no competing superpower for you now to worry about. Nobody building ICBMs, nuke subs, strategic bombers, or moving vast amounts of armour around in eastern europe. Nor competing in the weaponisation of space, nor using surrogates to challenge the US in power-plays around the globe.

But you don't mind this because:
1) It's the cost of maintenance going up. Not that anyone provided figures.
2) It's cool having the biggest guns.

If so, then fine. It's your country - do what you like. I'm just making sure I've got it right because your responses are exactly how I guessed they would be.

And let me repond to the usual attempts at attacking my own country that will doubtless follow:
1) Yeah I know what we spend on what. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
2) Attacking my country doesn't offend me as I'm sufficiently mature to realise my government is fallible. Questioning them is a mark of my patriotism not a lack thereof.
3) My government has ramped up defence spending recently with Eurofighter and our new planned Supercarriers. They've also reaffirmed our alignment with the US in recent months. While the idealist in me dislikes this trend the realist approves. If the US is going to blunder around making the world a more dangerous place for the foreseeable future I'm somewhat glad my leaders are pragmatic enough to gird our loins and batten down the hatches.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 18, 2003, 12:31 pm

1. More efficient weaponry means fewer people die.

2. Fighting small guerilla wars in multiple locations is more expensive than staring across an imaginary wall in eastern Europe.

3. Inflation.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 18, 2003, 12:40 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Quite honestly, the best way to keep peace is to be the unquestionable baddest motherfucker on the planet. If we were in a position of weakness, we would be as open to attack as anyone else.

9/11 proved how well this theory works.

On the foreign aid thing. Giving countries money so they can buy weapons from you should not be classified as foreign aid. Its called a subsidy.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 12:41 pm

Fallanthas wrote:No sir, it doesn't. I really wish you would learn to read. These little side trips into your idiocy are distracting.

Uh huh. Ok fucktard. One more time for the audience.

The best way to deter attack from an organized force is to assure absolute superiority on the battlefield. What's going to be more of a challenge to the U.S. in the future is learning how to discourage terrorist-style attacks. Not at all sure the millitary is the way to deal with those.

Sentence 1: Military superiority = "best" deterent
Sentence 2: Not sure how to deter terrorist attack
Sentence 3: Not sure if military superiority is "best" deterent against terrorist attack

Assertion: Terrorists are an "organized force", thus you contradicted yourself.

Have a nice day.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 18, 2003, 12:43 pm

1. More efficient weaponry means fewer people die

Er if that's the case I question their efficiency

2. Fighting small guerilla wars in multiple locations is more expensive than staring across an imaginary wall in eastern Europe

Your military was plenty active all over the world during the cold war. This is a red herring. Not to mention things like keeping scores of bombers circling at all times etc etc that you don't do now.

3. Inflation

Sure. I haven't seen figures for military spending ratio just the absolute figures.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 18, 2003, 12:51 pm

Kelgar,

For the love of.....

Terrorism = a small cell of activists, NOT organized in a millitary manner. An organized force is a group on afucking battlefield with a chain of command, you worthless, uninformed bean-counting bitch.

They are two totally seperate situations. Leverage against nations is achieved through superior force, either on the battlefield or in the boardroom. That doesn't work against terrorist for the most part.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » August 18, 2003, 12:54 pm

How the fuck are we supposed to take over the world and rape its natural resources if we don't have a huge army with the most high tech weaponry?

Seriously... minimalism is better? Get real. Hell, most of the people who bitch about how much money the US spends on various items this board AREN'T EVEN US TAXPAYERS - SO WHO GIVES A FUCK!?

Have a nice day!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 12:55 pm

Kelgar wrote:
Cartalas aka Mr. 47 wrote:
There you go Dumb Ass you answered your own question you BackWoods Off eating piece of fly shit.

The United States has a large defense budget becuase we dont use cheap ass slingshots to stay ready.
We use the latest technology and keep improving ourselves hell I say "Save a buck drop a nuke".
There is no other country that even remotely devotes as many resources to their respective defense budgets as the US can nor are there any other countries that can even come remotely close to sustaining an arms race with the US. The US defense budget is more than the rest of the world's combined. Even if the US were to quarter its defense budget, its technology would still be outpacing all others by light years.

So kindly fuck off and continue breeding your army of inbred retards like a good hick.

What a FuckTard are you really that fucking stupid? The Military spending of my govt. is really no concern yours when you are developing and mantaining sophisticated equipment like a F-18 as opposed to one of your Bi-Plane crop dusters of course we are going to spend more. What country you from KelFuck im probaly safe to say you buy american equipment.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 18, 2003, 12:59 pm

Terrorism is surely a new threat. I'm sure the US will adapt to match the threat. Such adaptations will most likely include working with like-minded countries. But in the end someone still needs a big stick to wack the bad guys. Fortunately we have that big stick and non-Americans can benefit from it without paying the taxes to support it.

BTW our taxes aren't that bad here.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 1:00 pm

Terrorism = a small cell of activists, NOT organized in a millitary manner. An organized force is a group on afucking battlefield with a chain of command, you worthless, uninformed bean-counting bitch.

Anything else you care to spin doctor your words as meaning? "Organized force" was vague and open to very general interpretations. Perhaps your dumbass can be more specific next time.

it requires a hell of a lot more resources to play firefighter for the fucking world in three or four different places at once than it ever took to keep Russia at bay

Uh huh. Sources? (I won't hold my breath expecting any)

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 18, 2003, 1:10 pm

Hell, most of the people who bitch about how much money the US spends on various items this board AREN'T EVEN US TAXPAYERS - SO WHO GIVES A FUCK!

Nah we're just providing the goods for you that you then don't pay for (check your budget deficit).

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 1:36 pm

Extra Chromosome wrote:What a FuckTard are you really that fucking stupid? The Military spending of my govt. is really no concern yours when you are developing and mantaining sophisticated equipment like a F-18 as opposed to one of your Bi-Plane crop dusters of course we are going to spend more. What country you from KelFuck im probaly safe to say you buy american equipment.

Holy fucking, run on, unpunctuated sentences, Batman!

Well dumbass. I believe I stated a long time ago that I'm a dual citizen of the ROC and US. My first and primary language was English. You figure it out.

We can go back and forth all day about numbers. I won't bother with them anymore because you clearly are a fucktard who buys big brother's justifications for super duper 400 billion dollar-a-year toys which are keeping you safe from the tyranny of limpdick two-bit dictators who go down faster than 2 dolla hos (like your sister/wife).

Take a good luck around your house sometime, dipshit. Ever heard of cheap labor? It's why the vast majority of goods of a non-technological nature tend to be made in either China, Mexico, the Philipines, etc. My Polo + Hilfigers shirts, and Structure jeans are made in either Mexico or Thailand. Shoes? My Nikes are made in China or Vietnam.

Computer parts? Mostly Taiwanese brands which are made in China (Viewsonic, Asus, Abit) or Korea (Samsung). Cars? I've owned a Honda, Toyota, and Mazda.

PS. Chances are that the flag your old avatar had was made in China.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 1:41 pm

Kelgar wrote:
Extra Chromosome wrote:What a FuckTard are you really that fucking stupid? The Military spending of my govt. is really no concern yours when you are developing and mantaining sophisticated equipment like a F-18 as opposed to one of your Bi-Plane crop dusters of course we are going to spend more. What country you from KelFuck im probaly safe to say you buy american equipment.
Holy fucking, run on, unpunctuated sentences, Batman!

Well dumbass. I believe I stated a long time ago that I'm a dual citizen of the ROC and US. My first and primary language was English. You figure it out.

We can go back and forth all day about numbers. I won't bother with them anymore because you clearly are a fucktard who buys big brother's justifications for super duper 400 billion dollar-a-year toys which are keeping you safe from the tyranny of limpdick two-bit dictators who go down faster than 2 dolla hos (like your sister/wife).

Take a good luck around your house sometime, dipshit. Ever heard of cheap labor? It's why the vast majority of goods of a non-technological nature tend to be made in either China, Mexico, the Philipines, etc. My Polo + Hilfigers shirts, and Structure jeans are made in either Mexico or Thailand. Shoes? My Nikes are made in China or Vietnam.

Computer parts? Mostly Taiwanese brands which are made in China (Viewsonic, Asus, Abit) or Korea (Samsung). Cars? I've owned a Honda, Toyota, and Mazda.

PS. Chances are that the flag your old avatar had was made in China.

Canada Eh well all I got to say is thank you for buying our military equipment.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 1:46 pm

Canada Eh well all I got to say is thank you for buying our military equipment.

Geez. Even an average inbred hick isn't normally this fucking retarded. Maybe hitting the bottle of moonshine during pregnancy wasn't such a good idea on your mother's part.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 2:09 pm

Kelgar wrote:
Canada Eh well all I got to say is thank you for buying our military equipment.
Geez. Even an average inbred hick isn't normally this fucking retarded. Maybe hitting the bottle of moonshine during pregnancy wasn't such a good idea on your mother's part.

Ahh Kelgar are you not having fun,How about a first class ticket to W.VA and a Bullseyes on your ass, NO NO No not the one you you paint on there for your little bath house buddies.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 18, 2003, 2:21 pm

Anything else you care to spin doctor your words as meaning?

Spin doctor? When someone brings up a millitary question I assume a basic understanding of terminology on their part. Sorry it took so long to dumb down to your level.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 18, 2003, 2:23 pm

Regarding the reason for the amount of our defense budget. First, as I already pointed out we are not yet up to the level of 400 billion. During the 90s for the most part it was under 300 billion and trending downward (although it blipped up a bit at the end). The sharp spike upward is in 2002 and in the estimate for this year (and forward). Given those are the years after 9/11, and that we had a military action in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq. Agree or disagree with those actions, did anyone really think they, and the Iraqi occupation however long it drags on were not going to be expensive?

I did get a chance to read the rest of the article that started all this. I am even less impressed with the author. In particular, we have the following ...

There is no country on Earth in a position to invade us with conventional forces. Only two countries, Russia and China, have the capability of attacking us with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Terrorists, while they are now receiving the bulk of the government's propaganda attention, cannot threaten our national security in any way, though they can, of course, kill some of us.

His position, that just because terrorists do not threaten our national security because they can "only" kill us rather than invade or drop missiles on us is, in my opinion, complete and utter drivel. An attack on our home soil that kills 3,000 of our citizens most certainly is a threat to our national security. One that illustrates that sometimes it is useful to be able to project force as well to try to go after the ones responsible.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 18, 2003, 2:40 pm

Kelgar wrote: Where exactly did I ever say that it was? Can you name me one single country which can come even remotely close to the former USSR in terms of challenging the US? And do these countries have any agenda which are actively trying to impose themselves into the US's sphere of influence?

One human being cannot be this incredibly stupid. Are you trying to honestly say that the country you are from does not rival the USSR as a military power? Are you really trying to feed us the bullshit that China does not have the same nuclear capacity that the US does? Are you trying to forget that your military would outnumber the US by about 3 to 1? The only thing China does not have is state of the art equipment. But trying to equip a force that size would drive their spending into astronomical ranges.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » August 18, 2003, 5:47 pm

Kelgar wrote:...I believe I stated a long time ago that I'm a dual citizen of the ROC and US. My first and primary language was English. You figure it out.

Umm, what is the ROC? Republic of China? Republic of Canada? Never heard of Canada referred to as "Republic of Canada", but then again I've never heard of dual US/Chinese citizenship either. Please clarify.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 18, 2003, 6:04 pm

What is Taiwan?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 18, 2003, 6:15 pm

I think Kelgar = Kooky with her strap-on dildo attached.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 18, 2003, 6:17 pm

Metanis wrote:I think...

Bullshit.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 18, 2003, 6:28 pm

Forthe wrote:
Metanis wrote:I think...
Bullshit.

Blow it out your ass FuckStain,Metanis is smarter then you 10 fold.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 18, 2003, 9:47 pm

ROC = Republic of China, aka Taiwan
PROC = People's Republic of China, aka mainland China

Kilmoll wrote:Are you trying to honestly say that the country you are from does not rival the USSR as a military power? Are you really trying to feed us the bullshit that China does not have the same nuclear capacity that the US does? Are you trying to forget that your military would outnumber the US by about 3 to 1? The only thing China does not have is state of the art equipment. But trying to equip a force that size would drive their spending into astronomical ranges.

Ooooo. Yet another cockknobber who needs another boogeyman to replace the fallen USSR. Nevermind the fact that China's navy and airforce is generations behind the US's and the fact that it would be a logistics nightmare to try to mobilize and supply their entire army in any major conflict. Their huge standing army is basically useless unless they are attempting to invade a neighboring country or are defending against invasion.

China is also notoriously isolationist, except in cases when you are knocking on their back door (ie Korea, Vietnam, etc). They are also slowly integrating capitalism into their society. It's no longer a question of "if", but when.