Obama: "Free riders aggravate me"

How do the Americans feel about their military budget?

Too big?
Too small?
Just right?

https://images.washingtonpost.com/?u...AF.gif&op=noop

Obama has criticised nations who call for military action but don't pay their fair share. This was a major factor in the UK meeting the NATO target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.

The US wouldn't need such a high military budget if it didn't have to constantly protect South Korea and Japan in the Far East. Or have so many troops in Germany, or look after Turkey and Israel in the Middle East. How do Americans feel about their tax money going to protect the Japanese or South Koreans?

However, if the Americans pulled out of the Far East would we see the start of an armed race? With S.Korea seeking nuclear weapons to put off the North, and Japan expanding its Navy to see off the rising China.




http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ctrine/471525/

Yes, we spend a whole lot of money on "defense". Much of it not necessarily spent wisely. Lets see where we can save a lot of it.
1) Pull all troops, airplanes and ships out of the middle east including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, UAE, etc. Stop military and economic support of Israel and Egypt.
2) Remove all military personnel and equipment in England, Germany and the rest of Europe to the same levels which those countries have in the USA.
3) Take all personnel and equipment out of sub Saharan Africa.
4) Reduce all personnel and equipment in Asia - Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Nationalist China and Diego Garcia to the same levels those countries have in the USA.
5) Ditto for the "Stans", Philippines and Okinawa.

Wait five years, or less, for the world to "cook"

I can see my taxes getting smaller already. Glad you brought it up.

A healthy dose of good old isolationism never hurts. I practice it regularly in my personal/business life. I guess the U.S. could do the same to its own benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Yes, we spend a whole lot of money on "defense". Much of it not necessarily spent wisely. Lets see where we can save a lot of it.
1) Pull all troops, airplanes and ships out of the middle east including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, UAE, etc. Stop military and economic support of Israel and Egypt.
2) Remove all military personnel and equipment in England, Germany and the rest of Europe to the same levels which those countries have in the USA.
3) Take all personnel and equipment out of sub Saharan Africa.
4) Reduce all personnel and equipment in Asia - Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Nationalist China and Diego Garcia to the same levels those countries have in the USA.
5) Ditto for the "Stans", Philippines and Okinawa.

Wait five years, or less, for the world to "cook"

I can see my taxes getting smaller already. Glad you brought it up.

---

But is some of it beneficial to the US?

For instance, people said US led intervention in Iraq was mainly so the US would get the oil. But most of the oil has gone to European countries. This has reduced the EUs reliance on Russian fuel imports and reduces Russian power. Surely a good thing for the US?

But the US tax payer is essentially subsidising the Japanese tax payer when it comes to their military. They only spend 1% of GDP on defence because they know the US would step in if either North Korea or China got a bit frisky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

But is some of it beneficial to the US?

For instance, people said US led intervention in Iraq was mainly so the US would get the oil. But most of the oil has gone to European countries. This has reduced the EUs reliance on Russian fuel imports and reduces Russian power. Surely a good thing for the US?

But the US tax payer is essentially subsidising the Japanese tax payer when it comes to their military. They only spend 1% of GDP on defence because they know the US would step in if either North Korea or China got a bit frisky.

---

Sorry for the late reply. I was away for a few days vacation.

Yes, the US does receive some benefit from the money spent. The benefit however in wildly out of proportion to the dollars expended. Many of the countries in Europe and Asia are able to get away with tiny fractions of GDP spent for defense only because the US spends so much. That's not just personnel and material either. We also spend huge sums on R&D to keep weapon systems state of the art and therefor (theoretically) better than those of potential foes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

But is some of it beneficial to the US?

For instance, people said US led intervention in Iraq was mainly so the US would get the oil. But most of the oil has gone to European countries. This has reduced the EUs reliance on Russian fuel imports and reduces Russian power. Surely a good thing for the US?

But the US tax payer is essentially subsidising the Japanese tax payer when it comes to their military. They only spend 1% of GDP on defence because they know the US would step in if either North Korea or China got a bit frisky.

---

Read "Confesssions of an Economic Hitman"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confes...onomic_Hit_Man

Maybe readable here:
https://openlibrary.org/search?q=con...ccessible+book

Personally I would give some thought to wrrying about the Japanese more than the Chinese...
Japanese like aniversaries..

China is still concentrating on improving the lives of the one BILLION who have not yet risen to the middle class..400 million have--created almost by will alone..a billion remains....

An old Revolutionary soldier said to me "Do you think we would do anything to risk this?"
as we were watching this from a position just over the right edge..
https://res.cloudinary.com/talenthou...ltncq6epo3.jpg

"They (Beijing) make noise for old dogs like me... The KMT (the bad guys--the Ultra-National so called "Nationalists" remember? The ones USA gave hundreds of millions in cash, arms both captured and fist rate US by the fleet-loads to, the ones that flatly refused to engage the Japaense unless cornered, the ones who could not convince enough people to die for them?) from way back---the ones which brutally occupied Taiwan and immediately began murdering thousands there) has their old dogs left over from back then...so they make noise to, but that's just noise..We old dogs are dying off...it'll get better...Besides, the biggest investors in this Province are Taiwanese---don't want to lose that>"

Might be seeing that old guy in a couple of weeks. I want to sit down and smoke some ciggies and drink tea and hear about the Bad Ol' Days..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

But the US tax payer is essentially subsidising the Japanese tax payer when it comes to their military. They only spend 1% of GDP on defence because they know the US would step in if either North Korea or China got a bit frisky.

---

Er...

Article 9.
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

- Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, 3rd May 1947.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution was added during Allied Occupation and given that under the Japanese Instrument of Surrender (Aug 15, 1945):
The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

Then this is Douglas MacArthur's fault.

I have never understood why US still has troops in Japan or Germany. I thought with so much spending they would not need any "help".

I am of the opinion that an EU army would be beneficial, more efficient and most importantly cheaper version of the current smaller and underwhelming armies of the EU countries but that's just a silly idea in the context of the Brexit and other 'special' members.

Yeah, an EU army would be beneficial. It will only have to include dwarfs, elves, fairies and other minorities for the sake of of political correctness. It will also be banned from taking part in action because war is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Yeah, an EU army would be beneficial. It will only have to include dwarfs, elves, fairies and other minorities for the sake of of political correctness. It will also be banned from taking part in action because war is bad.

---

Shouldn't be a problem. The US already includes fairies in our armed forces.

(Relax folks. That was a joke, as in pun, and not intended as a homophobic comment.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Yeah, an EU army would be beneficial. It will only have to include dwarfs, elves, fairies and other minorities for the sake of of political correctness. It will also be banned from taking part in action because war is bad.

---

I'm always ready to enjoy a wisecrack. Do you know any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storm

I have never understood why US still has troops in Japan or Germany. I thought with so much spending they would not need any "help".

---

Both Germany and Japan spend around 1% of GDP on defence, which is below the NATO target.

The US is troops in Germany seem to be a Cold War hangover. But if I were a US tax payer I'd be annoyed that so much of my tax money goes to military presence in other countries who themselves spend a far lower amount on defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I am of the opinion that an EU army would be beneficial, more efficient and most importantly cheaper version of the current smaller and underwhelming armies of the EU countries but that's just a silly idea in the context of the Brexit and other 'special' members.

---

Military hardware is so expensive now that it would make sense for EU collaboration on big projects, such as the Eurofighter. But then the French always go off on their own because the UK won't let them take the lead.