|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2013 05:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:49 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I don't know where you get federal prisons and private prisons mixed up but that doesn't allow you to be a dick for no reason. No one's being a dick, you have failed to provide any reasonable disproof towards the notion that Congressional Republicans have, by and large, loved prisons, both private and government owned. Being the person that argued that republicans love private prisons (and now union prisons now apparently) the burden of proof is on you. Don't be an asshole and expect other people to prove your arguments wrong. Nothing I said was at all inflammatory, so stop with the crybaby act. The majority of supermax prisons are in red states, and Republicans raised no objections alongside their creation. It is that simple. The fact that ADX Thomson would be built in a blue state just further reinforces the notion that Republicans would only object to this prison based on partisan inclination.
Yes as they should. Why should obama get credit for "closeing down gitmo" when all he'll do is just move them from one super max prison in the USA to another super max prison in the USA.
|
On May 24 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try. In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes. America could conceivably pull off a successful first strike against either. MAD isn't really relevant anymore.
Could, so could Russia. I am doubtful about China and powerful enough first strike. MAD might not be relevant, but "mutually assured big enough losses" are still on the table and quite enough to lower chances of major war. There are of course other factors, but neither of the ones that I can see has anything to do with US military hegemony. They all have to do with social and economical factors.
|
United States42983 Posts
On May 24 2013 05:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:On May 24 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try. In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes. America could conceivably pull off a successful first strike against either. MAD isn't really relevant anymore. Could, so could Russia. I am doubtful about China and powerful enough first strike. MAD might not be relevant, but "mutually assured big enough losses" are still on the table and quite enough to lower chances of major war. There are of course other factors, but neither of the ones that I can see has anything to do with US military hegemony. They all have to do with social and economical factors.
I read an interesting article on it although it's a few years dated now. Basically Russia's nuclear readiness at the moment is pretty much zero. If tensions started growing then they could get their shit together but right now their subs aren't kept at sea constantly, their missiles aren't fuelled and ready to launch, their mobile launchers aren't mobile, it's all just rusting since the fall of the Soviet Union.
|
On May 24 2013 05:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 05:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:49 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I don't know where you get federal prisons and private prisons mixed up but that doesn't allow you to be a dick for no reason. No one's being a dick, you have failed to provide any reasonable disproof towards the notion that Congressional Republicans have, by and large, loved prisons, both private and government owned. Being the person that argued that republicans love private prisons (and now union prisons now apparently) the burden of proof is on you. Don't be an asshole and expect other people to prove your arguments wrong. Nothing I said was at all inflammatory, so stop with the crybaby act. The majority of supermax prisons are in red states, and Republicans raised no objections alongside their creation. It is that simple. The fact that ADX Thomson would be built in a blue state just further reinforces the notion that Republicans would only object to this prison based on partisan inclination. Yes as they should. Why should obama get credit for "closeing down gitmo" when all he'll do is just move them from one super max prison in the USA to another super max prison in the USA.
Prisoners legal status has a lot to do with it, as well as accountability to U.S. Law. It's not just who would gets a contract. I'm just pointing out a missing dynamic in the Gitma discussion.
Edit: Eric Holder mentioning Obama didn't specifically run the drone strikes in which Americans were killed makes sense as well now.
|
On May 24 2013 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 05:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:On May 24 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try. In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes. America could conceivably pull off a successful first strike against either. MAD isn't really relevant anymore. Could, so could Russia. I am doubtful about China and powerful enough first strike. MAD might not be relevant, but "mutually assured big enough losses" are still on the table and quite enough to lower chances of major war. There are of course other factors, but neither of the ones that I can see has anything to do with US military hegemony. They all have to do with social and economical factors. I read an interesting article on it although it's a few years dated now. Basically Russia's nuclear readiness at the moment is pretty much zero. If tensions started growing then they could get their shit together but right now their subs aren't kept at sea constantly, their missiles aren't fuelled and ready to launch, their mobile launchers aren't mobile, it's all just rusting since the fall of the Soviet Union.
There is no existential world domination struggle going. Hence rewards from wiping out one country, even if it came with no losses are minimally valued.
|
On May 24 2013 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 05:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:On May 24 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try. In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes. America could conceivably pull off a successful first strike against either. MAD isn't really relevant anymore. Could, so could Russia. I am doubtful about China and powerful enough first strike. MAD might not be relevant, but "mutually assured big enough losses" are still on the table and quite enough to lower chances of major war. There are of course other factors, but neither of the ones that I can see has anything to do with US military hegemony. They all have to do with social and economical factors. I read an interesting article on it although it's a few years dated now. Basically Russia's nuclear readiness at the moment is pretty much zero. If tensions started growing then they could get their shit together but right now their subs aren't kept at sea constantly, their missiles aren't fuelled and ready to launch, their mobile launchers aren't mobile, it's all just rusting since the fall of the Soviet Union.
That's pretty much true of the Russian military in general. Their conventional forces are in very sorry shape.
|
On May 24 2013 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 05:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:On May 24 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try. In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes. America could conceivably pull off a successful first strike against either. MAD isn't really relevant anymore. Could, so could Russia. I am doubtful about China and powerful enough first strike. MAD might not be relevant, but "mutually assured big enough losses" are still on the table and quite enough to lower chances of major war. There are of course other factors, but neither of the ones that I can see has anything to do with US military hegemony. They all have to do with social and economical factors. I read an interesting article on it although it's a few years dated now. Basically Russia's nuclear readiness at the moment is pretty much zero. If tensions started growing then they could get their shit together but right now their subs aren't kept at sea constantly, their missiles aren't fuelled and ready to launch, their mobile launchers aren't mobile, it's all just rusting since the fall of the Soviet Union.
It is probably somewhat exaggerated, but their readiness is probably quite a lot decreased, especially readiness of the mobile components. But as I said MAD is necessary as deterrent only if at least one side really, but really hates and wants to destroy the other side. And situations like that tend to develop over longer period giving the sides time enough to be ready. But for preventing the accidental "lets take advantage of nice circumstances and start a war" wars , those are prevented by threat of even moderate retaliatory capacity. That is partially why all those "rogue" countries want nukes. Gives them some guarantees that they won't be attacked by US or other major power.
|
On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes?
MAD became irrelevant when AC (Acceptable causalities) took effect.
People don't value human life.
We live in a world with people who think that dying for Allah, will be rewarded with virgins in some wanna-be heaven end life.
You think MAD is going to save you, or me, or anyone? Get a clue.
To quote a phrase that Stalin is credited (though incorrectly) for saying:
"The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions--a statistic"
Kwark is spot on (Can't believe I said that) when he talks about the American deterrent. When America spends more resources on military than the next 20ish nations combined (or so Hollywood claims) who would want to upset the established order against those odds- with the exception of the AC people.
Edit: sp
|
On May 24 2013 06:09 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes? MAD became irrelevant when AC (Acceptable causalities) took effect. People don't value human life. We live in a world with people who think that dying for Allah, will be rewarded with virgins in some wanna-be heaven end life. You think MAD is going to save you, or me, or anyone? Get a clue. To quote a phrase that Stalin is credited (though incorrectly) for saying: "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions--a statistic" Kwark is spot on (Can't believe I said that) when he talks about the American deterrent. When American spends more resources on military than the next 20ish nations combined (or so Hollywood claims) who would want to upset the established order against those odds- with the exception of the AC people.
Its not a "Hollywood" claim its an actual claim backed by statistics. I don't mind that America spends a ton on defense but the problem is that a lot of that is on stuff that is either not useful not needed or spent maintaining things that are not useful or not needed.
|
On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I seriously don't understand. Red states have typically loved prisons and their construction, as that equals more money and more jobs and a happy private prison lobby.
I think red states build more prisons because they typically have more crime and, as a result, more prisoners. I don't think they're building prisons for the simple love and joy of it or because of some tiny private prison lobby.
|
On May 24 2013 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I seriously don't understand. Red states have typically loved prisons and their construction, as that equals more money and more jobs and a happy private prison lobby. I think red states build more prisons because they typically have more crime and, as a result, more prisoners. I don't think they're building prisons for the simple love and joy of it or because of some tiny private prison lobby.
There's a lot more to our sick system of mass incarceration than high crime, though. And there really is an explosion in the number of private prisons. That said, it's not really relevant to Guantanamo at all, since that's more about the silly notion that (potential) TERRORISTS have some sort of crazy supermutant powers that they draw from American Soil like Superman and the Yellow Sun and if they were on American soil, no concrete nor steel could hold them, and no bullets could stop them. Okay, not really, but no one has come up with any less nonsensical explanation, so that's essentially it 
|
On May 24 2013 06:15 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes? MAD became irrelevant when AC (Acceptable causalities) took effect. People don't value human life. We live in a world with people who think that dying for Allah, will be rewarded with virgins in some wanna-be heaven end life. You think MAD is going to save you, or me, or anyone? Get a clue. To quote a phrase that Stalin is credited (though incorrectly) for saying: "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions--a statistic" Kwark is spot on (Can't believe I said that) when he talks about the American deterrent. When American spends more resources on military than the next 20ish nations combined (or so Hollywood claims) who would want to upset the established order against those odds- with the exception of the AC people. Its not a "Hollywood" claim its an actual claim backed by statistics. I don't mind that America spends a ton on defense but the problem is that a lot of that is on stuff that is either not useful not needed or spent maintaining things that are not useful or not needed.
I said Hollywood claim since I saw it on a random video clip taken from a movie. Since I doubt there is honest facts backing up the statistic, I said it the way I did. If you have source material I'll happily educate myself on it though I don't see how that is possible--why would a country (other than the US) tell the world what they spend on military. It is EXTREMLY disadvantageous. Also how do you know that those countries are telling the truth? You don't.
I also agree with your conclusion- I've seen the fraud waste and abuse 1st hand when it comes to tax payer dollars. It is reckless. Sadly when it came to cuts- rather than change the wastefulness- they just cut another 10,000 service members. Good luck to those patriots getting a job in this Obama economy.
|
On May 24 2013 06:53 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:15 Adreme wrote:On May 24 2013 06:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes? MAD became irrelevant when AC (Acceptable causalities) took effect. People don't value human life. We live in a world with people who think that dying for Allah, will be rewarded with virgins in some wanna-be heaven end life. You think MAD is going to save you, or me, or anyone? Get a clue. To quote a phrase that Stalin is credited (though incorrectly) for saying: "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions--a statistic" Kwark is spot on (Can't believe I said that) when he talks about the American deterrent. When American spends more resources on military than the next 20ish nations combined (or so Hollywood claims) who would want to upset the established order against those odds- with the exception of the AC people. Its not a "Hollywood" claim its an actual claim backed by statistics. I don't mind that America spends a ton on defense but the problem is that a lot of that is on stuff that is either not useful not needed or spent maintaining things that are not useful or not needed. I said Hollywood claim since I saw it on a random video clip taken from a movie. Since I doubt there is honest facts backing up the statistic, I said it the way I did. If you have source material I'll happily educate myself on it though I don't see how that is possible--why would a country (other than the US) tell the world what they spend on military. It is EXTREMLY disadvantageous. Also how do you know that those countries are telling the truth? You don't. I also agree with your conclusion- I've seen the fraud waste and abuse 1st hand when it comes to tax payer dollars. It is reckless. Sadly when it came to cuts- rather than change the wastefulness- they just cut another 10,000 service members. Good luck to those patriots getting a job in this Obama economy.
First hit on Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Equal to at least the next 15 combined.
Unsubstantiated paranoia about every country lying doesn't hold up to stats. Unless you can show us actual evidence that these countries would lie aside from baseless conspiracy theories, then these stats are fairly trustworthy.
|
On May 24 2013 06:53 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:15 Adreme wrote:On May 24 2013 06:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes? MAD became irrelevant when AC (Acceptable causalities) took effect. People don't value human life. We live in a world with people who think that dying for Allah, will be rewarded with virgins in some wanna-be heaven end life. You think MAD is going to save you, or me, or anyone? Get a clue. To quote a phrase that Stalin is credited (though incorrectly) for saying: "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions--a statistic" Kwark is spot on (Can't believe I said that) when he talks about the American deterrent. When American spends more resources on military than the next 20ish nations combined (or so Hollywood claims) who would want to upset the established order against those odds- with the exception of the AC people. Its not a "Hollywood" claim its an actual claim backed by statistics. I don't mind that America spends a ton on defense but the problem is that a lot of that is on stuff that is either not useful not needed or spent maintaining things that are not useful or not needed. I said Hollywood claim since I saw it on a random video clip taken from a movie. Since I doubt there is honest facts backing up the statistic, I said it the way I did. If you have source material I'll happily educate myself on it though I don't see how that is possible--why would a country (other than the US) tell the world what they spend on military. It is EXTREMLY disadvantageous. Also how do you know that those countries are telling the truth? You don't. I also agree with your conclusion- I've seen the fraud waste and abuse 1st hand when it comes to tax payer dollars. It is reckless. Sadly when it came to cuts- rather than change the wastefulness- they just cut another 10,000 service members. Good luck to those patriots getting a job in this Obama economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Check their sources and see if you agree with them or not. The reason US military expenses are so much higher is because of the larger BNP, plenty of countries using more % of available funds.
|
On May 24 2013 07:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:53 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 06:15 Adreme wrote:On May 24 2013 06:09 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes? MAD became irrelevant when AC (Acceptable causalities) took effect. People don't value human life. We live in a world with people who think that dying for Allah, will be rewarded with virgins in some wanna-be heaven end life. You think MAD is going to save you, or me, or anyone? Get a clue. To quote a phrase that Stalin is credited (though incorrectly) for saying: "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions--a statistic" Kwark is spot on (Can't believe I said that) when he talks about the American deterrent. When American spends more resources on military than the next 20ish nations combined (or so Hollywood claims) who would want to upset the established order against those odds- with the exception of the AC people. Its not a "Hollywood" claim its an actual claim backed by statistics. I don't mind that America spends a ton on defense but the problem is that a lot of that is on stuff that is either not useful not needed or spent maintaining things that are not useful or not needed. I said Hollywood claim since I saw it on a random video clip taken from a movie. Since I doubt there is honest facts backing up the statistic, I said it the way I did. If you have source material I'll happily educate myself on it though I don't see how that is possible--why would a country (other than the US) tell the world what they spend on military. It is EXTREMLY disadvantageous. Also how do you know that those countries are telling the truth? You don't. I also agree with your conclusion- I've seen the fraud waste and abuse 1st hand when it comes to tax payer dollars. It is reckless. Sadly when it came to cuts- rather than change the wastefulness- they just cut another 10,000 service members. Good luck to those patriots getting a job in this Obama economy. First hit on Google. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendituresEqual to at least the next 15 combined. Unsubstantiated paranoia about every country lying doesn't hold up to stats. Unless you can show us actual evidence that these countries would lie aside from baseless conspiracy theories, then these stats are fairly trustworthy.
Paranoia? Lol. You are on TeamLiquid.com Are you aware of this? This site is based off gamers who partake in a STRATEGY GAME. Information is power. You have 99 reasons to lie about military funds. Unless your Number1 you have no legitimate reason to be honest about your spending. It is a security thing. Paranoid? No not paranoid- responsible. Any country that has competent leadership should not disclose their military spending- or if pressured to do so, should/do fudge numbers.
Please don't go around saying you're paranoid, or a conspiracy theorist- when you have no idea what your talking about.
Here's some thing you should look into: "OPSEC".
|
United States42983 Posts
Er, SayGen, in liberal democracies what happens is the leaders publish budgets. Now, they don't have to give a full breakdown of how they spend each dollar but they do have to give a total amount to ask the treasury for so they can pay their dudes. You're insane if you think anyone is trying to hide the total amount.
|
Secret money and lies everywhere! Falsifiability be damned!
|
United States42983 Posts
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes.
|
|
|
On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes.
Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag
.com .net w/e
Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military.
If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services.
Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending?
My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors.
Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
