Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Comparison - US Military Spending to Terrorists Spending

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:50 PM
Original message
Comparison - US Military Spending to Terrorists Spending
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 07:58 PM by bloom
$420,000,000,000 + 2,600,000,000+ to Israel

Or

$663,000,000,000,000

(depending on what figures you count)


1. United States: $1,738/person/year
2. Israel: $1,575





10. Iran: $62
11. China: $62
12. India: $17

_____________________________________________________

How much do you suppose that Hezbolla or some other terrorist group spends on weapons per year/ and/or per/person/year?

.00001% of what the US spends or something - $10/person/year maybe? Maybe a dollar.

I think people should keep things in perspective.

_____________________________________________________

"The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total. In the absence of (appropriations for the new war on terror, and on Iraq), US military expenditure would still show a significant increase, but at a much slower rate, and world military spending would show a rise of 4 per cent rather than 11 per cent in 2003."


"During his 2000 election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the War on Terror.

"The next two largest items were education and health, getting $60bn and $51bn (7% and 6.2% of discretionary budget) respectively."

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spend...


_____________________________________________________

Does anyone think that there is an amount that we could spend that would prevent harm to Americans somewhere in the world by people who are angered by the US (and Israel's) terrorism of the world?

I don't.

_____________________________________________________

P.S. I am using the word "terrorist", "terrorism" to mean any armed type of warfare by groups of people in defense of their territory or way of life (though we don't tend to include gangs in this sort of thing) - for these purposes - it could include anything from nuclear bombs to "gatorade" bombs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. how much could have been used for OUR homeland security?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Much less profit to be made by admin buddies by securing
the "homeland".... so war is what we shall have instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I guess they couldn't get their way with the ports?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I reckon not.... pity for them. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzypolitics Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's always cheaper to attack, than defend...
Especially when using guerilla tactics...

See more at: http://fuzzy.blog-city.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Napoleon, to defend everywhere is to defend no where.
And it is the attempt to defend everywhere where the cost of Defense exceeds the cost of Offense. If you follow Napoleon's maxim, and drop all this STUPID and INEFFECTIVE attempts to prevent another 9/11 and just handle it when it occurs, you will save a lot of money and probably will see the same number of lives lost. Today, given 9/11, the passengers will NOT permit the terrorists to keep control of the plane and will take the plane back, thus all the security to prevent 9/11 is better spent elsewhere.

As to offense vs Defense, the generally rule of thumb is the Offensive has to be at least three times the strength as the Defense. Not not three times the number, three times the strength. Thus the M1 take is 3 times the take the T-72 is (and six times a T-72 that has a used worn out gun and other parts, like most of the T-72s Iraq had during the the march on Baghdad and probably during Desert Storm). The T-72 gun barrel is design only to last about 100 rounds compared to the M-1 barrel which is design to last 2000 rounds before it needs to be replaced. The US also had complete Air Superiority during both Campaigns again showing the increase strength of the US Forces during both Conflicts.

The problem with fighting Al Queda, is that Al Queda is always going to look for our weakest point to hit us, thus the best way to defeat Al Queda is as follows:
1. Destroy Al Queda, if we can, there is strong evidence we have tried and failed.
2. Undermine Al Queda's support, i.e. pull out of the Mid-East and abounded the House of Saud and the rest of the Ruling elites of the Mid-East to the tender mercies of their on people. Once Al Queda is on control of these areas, they will want to sell oil not fight us and this we get the oil for much higher prices in Dollars but not in lives.
3. Negotiate with Al Queda and work out a deal, for Example Hezbollah and Israel had a deal for much of the last 1990s till 2006, the Israelis would NOT try to destroy Hezbollah and Hezbollah would NOT launch its missiles. Until the recent fighting BOTH SIDES KEPT THIS DEAL and Israeli Civilian losses just did NOt occur (The recent civilian losses to the Hezbollah's rockets are ONLY since the start of the Israeli attack on Hezbollah).

The best solution is #2 (No 1 has already failed), we need to undermine Al Queda's support by abandoning the Mid-east and its oil. The price of Gasoline would go through the Roof in the US, but out losses to Al Queda would drop like a rock. Thus the real question is how many american lives are you will to lose to keep Oil under $5 a gallon?.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. War is a Racket by Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, a classic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That is a good one.
Napoleon once said,

"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

"So by developing the Napoleonic system the medal business the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyRingo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Maybe we can hook the terrorists up with Haliburton
...Drive 'em straight to the poor house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Haliburton is a terrorist organization same as Hezbollah and Hamas
...all begin with "H".

P.S. As does White House which has two h's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC