George W. Bush and the Almighty

real, Go back and read what I wrote. I'm not talking about GDP. What you write is certainly rubbish. We're talking about total expenditure on our military vs all other countries.

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, Go back and read what I wrote. I'm not talking about GDP. What you write is certainly rubbish. We're talking about total expenditure on our military vs all other countries.

Let's compare apples with apples.

Something that costs $1,000,000 here may cost $1,000 in China.

Wages are a great example of this.

More man-hours can be purchased in China with $1,000,000 than in America.

So if each country spends $1,000,000 to improve a weapons system, which one has the greater investment?

The answer is obvious.

That's why a more realistic comparison is to look at the investment in military might expressed as a percentage of GDP.

The Chinese spend a much greater percentage of their total industrial output on military expansion than the USA does.

I suspect that you already know this, however it doesn't fit well with your 'bash the US' political view.

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, Go back and read what I wrote. I'm not talking about GDP. What you write is certainly rubbish. We're talking about total expenditure on our military vs all other countries.

Let's compare apples with apples.

Something that costs $1,000,000 here may cost $1,000 in China.

Wages are a great example of this.

More man-hours can be purchased in China with $1,000,000 than in America.

So if each country spends $1,000,000 to improve a weapons system, which one has the greater investment?

The answer is obvious.

That's why a more realistic comparison is to look at the investment in military might expressed as a percentage of GDP.

The Chinese spend a much greater percentage of their total industrial output on military expansion than the USA does.

I suspect that you already know this, however it doesn't fit well with your 'bash the US' political view.

So, are you saying that the Chinese buy more weapons than America does? Would you agree that America has more military equipment/weapons/etc than any 7 other countries combined?

real, Your comparison of buying power between the US dollar and the Chinese Yuan is laughable at best, ignorant at most.

The US has been building our military hardware for generations.

China is just beginning to scratch the surface.

Addition to all that, what country will join China in a war?

It is easily verifiable that the Chinese have a standing army several times the size of our own, and that their current military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are much greater than our own.

Do you doubt this?

If you say you do, then I am correct that you are misinformed (or simply trying to mislead and obfuscate) and I shall be glad to show it by providing documentation on these points.

You would be better off changing the subject to something you are more informed about, or at least can more easily confuse the issue to further your political stance of making America the villian.

maporsche,

The value of money is relative.

Just as $1 today does not have the same value as $1 in 1960, so $1 million spent by the US for weapons does not have the same value as $1 million spent by China for weapons.

Do you understand why this is the case?

Try looking at it this way.

A $1 million house in San Francisco and a $1 million house in Garnett KS would not be the same thing. (actually it is much better to live anywhere other than Frisco, but I digress)

So a $1 million weapons system in the US and a $1 million weapons system in China are not the same thing.

real life wrote:

maporsche,

The value of money is relative.

Just as $1 today does not have the same value as $1 in 1960, so $1 million spent by the US for weapons does not have the same value as $1 million spent by China for weapons.

Do you understand why this is the case?

Try looking at it this way.

A $1 million house in San Francisco and a $1 million house in Garnett KS would not be the same thing. (actually it is much better to live anywhere other than Frisco, but I digress)

So a $1 million weapons system in the US and a $1 million weapons system in China are not the same thing.

That is not my point, that is yours.

My point is that the United States owns, buys, possesses, could use, stockpiles, and builds more weaponry and military might than other country.

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

maporsche,

The value of money is relative.

Just as $1 today does not have the same value as $1 in 1960, so $1 million spent by the US for weapons does not have the same value as $1 million spent by China for weapons.

Do you understand why this is the case?

Try looking at it this way.

A $1 million house in San Francisco and a $1 million house in Garnett KS would not be the same thing. (actually it is much better to live anywhere other than Frisco, but I digress)

So a $1 million weapons system in the US and a $1 million weapons system in China are not the same thing.

That is not my point, that is yours.

My point is that the United States owns, buys, possesses, could use, stockpiles, and builds more weaponry and military might than other country.

I understand that this is your point, however you have yet to prove it.

BTW , owning or possessing something that has been purchased previously vs. current purchases is a big difference that I am sure you will try to gloss over.

However, the issue that was being discussed is what is being spent NOW, not what was purchased in the past.

OK so China has an army that is twice the size of the US army. But the facts are irrelevant , right CI?

America is just a bully plain and simple, right?

America's military has served long, thankless periods keeping the peace in Europe after WWII ( how many troops still are in Europe?) , protecting South Korea from aggression long after the Korean war (no oil there, I thought that's all we ever went to war over, CI ) and in Japan ( how many US troops still there? ) so that Japan has no need to militarize and become a threat to the region (don't laugh, it could have happened after WWII had not the US presence remained, just look at Germany between WWI and WWII ).

Yes a sizable percentage of the US military is dedicated to protecting the peace around the world. We're just bullies, right?

We throw money to the military just to throw our weight around. Unrepentant , power mad USA. How evil, eh?

We spilled our guts to rescue Europe, not once, but twice in the last century.

We have time and again rescued weaker nations from aggressors. All without your thanks.

Did it serve our interests too? Yes, peace is in everybody's interest. But you don't often see other nations spilling blood to keep the peace like the USA.

Should we just pull back and let terrorists have at it?

We were attacked by terrorists AT LEAST 4 times during the reign of King Bill , and we did nothing substantial in response, inviting further aggression.

4 times:

World Trade Center attack #1 -- 1993
Khobar Towers -- 1996
2 Embassies in Africa bombed -- 1998
USS Cole attacked -- 2000

Ignoring aggression invites further aggression.

Ok, so I won't bother you with the facts anymore.

China feeds and supplies a military presence over twice the size of the US military. (They also have NO ongoing commitments to keep the peace anywhere in the world.) But we're the bad guys. We're the ones 'spending more to militarize'. Yeah right.