New Cold War?

[Joemailman]

U.S.-Russia relations sink to near-Cold War depths
By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - On the eve of next week's G-8 summit meeting, relations between the United States and Russia have ebbed to their lowest level since the Cold War, fueled by Moscow's growing confidence and an apparent Russian perception of U.S. weakness.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded to American plans for a European-based missile-defense system by testing a new intercontinental missile, publicly blasted a U.S.-backed initiative to give independence to the Serbian province of Kosovo and frustrated American diplomatic initiatives on several fronts.

Putin, alluding to U.S. "imperialism," said Thursday that the missile test was a response to the Bush administration's plans to put a missile-defense radar and 10 interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"We are not the initiators of this new round of the arms race," Putin told a Kremlin news conference.

"Our partners are stuffing eastern Europe with new weapons," he said. "What are we supposed to do? We cannot just observe all this."

While the Russian leader is a former KGB officer and his rhetoric echoed of the Cold War, U.S. officials and analysts don't expect a return to U.S.-Russian military confrontation. But the disputes appear certain to cloud the summit of the Group of Eight leaders in Germany, in which President Bush and Putin will participate. Moreover, Russia's assertive posture poses new international headaches for Bush as his administration struggles to deal with intractable crises.

Last month Putin appeared to compare the United States to Nazi Germany, surprising and dismaying top Bush aides.

"We want a 21st-century partnership with Russia, but at times, Russia seems to think and act in the zero-sum terms of another era," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday in Europe, where she tangled with her Russian counterpart on missile defenses and Kosovo.

In an attempt to repair the damage, Bush issued an unusual invitation to Putin this week to join him for two days of talks in early July at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine.

"There's an effort to walk back from the brink on both sides," said a State Department official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak for the record.

Still, he acknowledged, "We're not going to get past the flash points so easily, because they reflect real differences."

The White House shows no signs of backing down on the missile-defense plan, which Russia regards as a major new intrusion by the West toward its borders. Bush will bookend the G-8 summit with stops in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Kosovo is an emotional issue in Russia, which has long-standing ties to Serbia, a fellow Slavic nation, and Russia's U.N. ambassador hinted Thursday that Moscow is ready to veto a U.N. independence plan for the province, which has been under international protection since 1999.

Russia's confidence, based in part on its burgeoning oil wealth, and its apparent calculation of U.S. weakness due to the Iraq war are further hurdles to repairing relations.

"The truth is that people notice when Gulliver is tied down," said Daniel Serwer, a former U.S. diplomat who's now with the U.S. Institute for Peace. "They (the Russians) have got bundles of money rolling in and they've got their historical adversary bogged down in Iraq."

Michael McFaul of Stanford University said a major reason for the growing tensions was that Putin and his lieutenants were conditioned by their careers in the Soviet secret services to view the world in black and white.

"If you are sitting in Moscow, the great power is the United States, and they see anything that is positive for us as being negative for Moscow and vice versa," he said,

McFaul said the strains with the West went beyond rhetoric to Russian arms sales to Iran and recent cyber attacks on computer systems in Estonia, a former Soviet republic that's joined the NATO alliance.

"That's not rhetoric. That's real," McFaul said. "These are very concrete policies that are threats to the United States and its allies."

He also said the shifting power balance was to blame: "We are a lot weaker and they are a lot stronger."

The Bush administration has been at pains to tell Russians that the proposed anti-missile system is meant to defend against "rogue" states such as Iran, not Russia's thousands of nuclear warheads. Defense Secretary Robert Gates went to Moscow in late April to give Russian officials a detailed briefing.

But James Dobbins, a former senior U.S. diplomat, said that to the Kremlin the missile-defense project "appears to be inconsistent" with assurances the United States and its allies gave Russia in the 1990s that NATO's expansion and Germany's reunification wouldn't be used to move the alliance's military capabilities toward the Russian border.

The Russians "are back," said a second State Department official, who also asked not to be identified because he isn't authorized to speak on the record. "And a lot of this has to do with a flexing of muscles that come with power. It's a different kind of power" than the Soviet Union's. "They're wealthy."

William Douglas contributed to this article.


Just thought I'd post this because it's the kind of thing you won't hear on the news much anymore. U.S./Europe relations have really tanked, and the President's low popularity here and abroad have probably robbed him of the clout to do much about it. Whoever the next President is will have a lot of work to do in the foreign relations field.

[Freak Out]

I wonder if Dubya is going to gaze into Putins black soul again and tell us everything is going to be ok? What is funny is that the Soviets had an ICBM (still have it) back in the mid 80s that could defeat the type of defense we are building.
Putin holds almost all the cards now so Dubya can't do to much to piss him off. Pretty sad times......

[oregonpackfan]

The United States now spends more on its defense budget than the rest of the worlds defense budgets COMBINED! We do not need to be spending even more money on our defense. Our budget deficit and national debt are at all time highs.

Both the USA and Russia should be actively talking to reduce their missile systems not increase them.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm all for a missile defense system.

The primary job of the federal government is to protect its citizens. Not all of the social programs that liberals have pushed to the federal level.

[hoosier]

I'm all for a missile defense system.

The primary job of the federal government is to protect its citizens. Not all of the social programs that liberals have pushed to the federal level.

Even if your libertarian definition of governmental responsibility were correct (which I don't accept), why assume that an anti-missile system is going to protect the US? Why not assume that it will just prompt others to try to build more sophisticated weapons that can avoid being shot down? Or why not assume that such a system is anachronistic and unable to address what is in fact a much more likely threat to the US today--not a rocket launched from overseas....

[HarveyWallbangers]

why assume that an anti-missile system is going to protect the US?

Why I assume it won't help?

[Scott Campbell]

Even if your libertarian definition of governmental responsibility were correct (which I don't accept), why assume that an anti-missile system is going to protect the US? Why not assume that it will just prompt others to try to build more sophisticated weapons that can avoid being shot down?


By that logic, why put locks on your doors? You may never be able to completely prevent attacks. But soft targets are more attractive than hard targets.

[esoxx]

Putin is bad news. He's rolling back reforms and putting limitations on the press. He's setting himself up for long-term rule. He's an old school Soviet piece of crap.

[hoosier]

Even if your libertarian definition of governmental responsibility were correct (which I don't accept), why assume that an anti-missile system is going to protect the US? Why not assume that it will just prompt others to try to build more sophisticated weapons that can avoid being shot down?


By that logic, why put locks on your doors? You may never be able to completely prevent attacks. But soft targets are more attractive than hard targets.

Not the same thing at all. Locks are cheap and easy to install, and are effective at least to the extent of making your house harder to break into (it makes your house a "hard target"). Anti-missile systems, on the other hand, are expensive and have historically (since the Reagan years) produced repeated failures. The obsession with ABM systems is due more to profits for the military industry than to the likelihood of producing a viable system. Not to mention the fact that they're useless against non-ballistic attacks.

[the_idle_threat]

Meh.

Like Bill Clinton, this story is overblown.

[Tony Oday]

Russia is still an economic thrid world country, it is rife with corruption and waste. They cant pay their military and most of their navy is rusting at the docks due to no maintinance. The only reason that Russia is considered a power is because of their nuclear arsenal.

The missle system is something actually quite funny. I would say build it, sure we can make a missle that will get through it but do you think some moron in North Korea can? All we have to do is wait out that regime because they will eventually starve. The missle system will provide a sense of security for a rouge state that has a limited nuclear armament and will creat a ton of jobs in the defense industry.

You may not like spending our money on defense but, 1 we need it and 2 this country would face a serious recession if defense spending was cut.

[oregonpackfan]

The missle system will provide a sense of security for a rouge state that has a limited nuclear armament and will creat a ton of jobs in the defense industry.

You may not like spending our money on defense but, 1 we need it and 2 this country would face a serious recession if defense spending was cut.[/quote]

Tony,

That line of thought that defense industry creates jobs is a myth. Economic studies had clearly demonstrated that if you take a million dollars to create jobs be it in health care, transportation, education or other areas, the industry that creates the FEWEST jobs is defense.

[the_idle_threat]

I would like to see those studies, because that assertion does not pass the smell test. :?: :?: :?:

[Merlin]

Even if your libertarian definition of governmental responsibility were correct (which I don't accept), why assume that an anti-missile system is going to protect the US?

Just an FYI, that isn't a Libertarian view, that is about the only authority that the Constitution grants the Federal Government.

Since you don't accept it one can safely assume that you think we live in a Democracy. We don't, we live in a representative Republic.

Go read the Constitution and show me where it says that the Federal Government has the right to take what is mine and give it to you. Better yet, find the part that says you have the right to vote for President.

[hoosier]

Go read the Constitution and show me where it says that the Federal Government has the right to take what is mine and give it to you.

That would be Amendment 16, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

[hoosier]

[Since you don't accept it one can safely assume that you think we live in a Democracy. We don't, we live in a representative Republic.



Gosh, I didn't know the two (republic and democracy) were mutually exclusive. Thanks for the head's up.

[Joemailman]

Even if your libertarian definition of governmental responsibility were correct (which I don't accept), why assume that an anti-missile system is going to protect the US?

Just an FYI, that isn't a Libertarian view, that is about the only authority that the Constitution grants the Federal Government.

Since you don't accept it one can safely assume that you think we live in a Democracy. We don't, we live in a representative Republic.

Go read the Constitution and show me where it says that the Federal Government has the right to take what is mine and give it to you. Better yet, find the part that says you have the right to vote for President.

The preamble to the constitution refers to a number of functions the federal government has:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Providing for the commen defense is just one of the roles given to the federal government. I guess whoever came up with promote the general welfare was a damn commie. :roll:

[HarveyWallbangers]

The preamble to the constitution refers to a number of functions the federal government has:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Providing for the commen defense is just one of the roles given to the federal government. I guess whoever came up with promote the general welfare was a damn commie. :roll:

I think you and I interpret that differently. I'd argue that other documents and decisions of that era point to the forefathers wanting a federal government much more limited than what a lot of Democrats believe in nowadays.

I find your signature funny considering the role Kennedy played in heightening the Vietnam "Conflict". Like all presidents, he was just as capable of talking out of both sides of his mouth as anymore. You'll argue that he was about to pull our troops out of Vietnam after initially escalating the conflict, but I believe that's up for much debate.

[Freak Out]

I thought that Congress cut funding for the systems that were going to be built in the Czech Republic and.....Bulgaria was it? Putin has a point when he says why put it there when Iran or Pakistan do not have long range missiles advanced enough to even warrant the system and he thinks it is just meant for red missiles. I don’t know about you but I still worry about Russian weapons. Iran could one day get a vehicle able to carry a multiple warhead long range weapon able to strike the US but that day is a long way off…and there is one country with many of those weapons right now.
The Bush admin has gone about this the wrong way from the beginning....big surprise there eh?

[Freak Out]

You'll argue that he was about to pull our troops out of Vietnam after initially escalating the conflict, but I believe that's up for much debate.

Zapruder has clear evidence that shows just that.

[Freak Out]

Poland not Bulgaria.

From DefenceTalk.com

Defence & Security
US Congress Cuts Missile Defense, Space Weapons, Nuke Funding
By

URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/index.php
May 11, 2007

Moscow, Russia: A United State congressional panel has cut administration defense spending for next year by 9% of the total requested, blocking funds to build a missile base in Poland. In a resolution focused heavily on greater independent control over President Bush's missile defense projects, the House Armed Services Committee cut $764 million from the requested total of over $10 billion.

The cuts put under threat spending on a Polish interceptor site and other projects, such as space weaponization, the development of a new nuclear warhead for the Trident missile and the replacement of its nuclear warheads by conventional ones.

Cutting $160 million from $310 million originally requested by the Bush administration for deployment of ten interceptor facilities in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, head of the Strategic Forces subcommittee Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, said that if the bill becomes law, the administration would be able to resubmit its request for the blocked funds, when and if, the Polish government approved the construction, and if a special independent comprehensive inquiry reassured Congress about the "political, technical, operational, command-and-control, and budgetary aspects" of the European missile defense concept.

She also said the subcommittee would like to hold another independent inquiry into the role and importance of the Missile Defense Agency which currently oversees crucial missile defense activities.

The Anti-Ballistic Laser (ABL) program was severely hit, along with other "less mature" initiatives, such as Space Tracking and Survelliance, Multiple Kill Vehicles, and Missile Defense Space Test Bed, primarily linked to the deployment of missile defenses in the outer space.

Tauscher said these programs could undermine efforts to prevent an extraterrestrial arms race.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a U.S. NGO standing up against political interference in science, has accused the Bush administration of attempting to continue research into space weaponization under the cover of classified military budget spending.

The Committee fully upheld the U.S. Army request for the already operational PAC-3 Patriot surface-to-air systems.

The funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, under which a new nuclear warhead is to be developed for the basic U.S. nuclear missile Trident instead of the W-76 commissioned in 1978, was cut by $20 million from the requested $88 million. Its future will also be subject to approval by a special independent expert commission on nuclear non-proliferation, similar to what former State Secretaries Henry Kissinger and George Schultz had called for in January.

The Armed Services Committee also cut the $135 million request for the Conventional Trident Modification Program, under which some of the Tridents based worldwide were to be equipped with non-nuclear warheads to employ them in the war on terror, leaving only as much money as is needed for further research and development. Tauscher highlighted concerns over potential Trident launches, saying such a launch might be misinterpreted by other states as a nuclear strike.

The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee has yet to be approved by both houses and by President Bush to become law.

[oregonpackfan]

Russia, in general, and Putin, in particular, historically has been invaded from the Western countries.

In WWII alone, Russia lost over 20 million citizens when it was invaded by a Western power(Nazi Germany.)

I bring this up not to justify Russia's distrust of any Western country but merely to explain it.

[Merlin]

The 16th Amendment does NOT state that the Federal Government has the right to redistribute wealth, to take what is mine and give it to you. The General Welfare of the United States does not include a bridge to no where, public education, health care, welfare, social security or any other of the socio-economic programs that I pay for. Anytime the government takes control of something that is reserved for the states or the individual, that is called Socialism. Also, anytime the government takes over something, it gets more expensive and fails miserably. So despite the later, I am certain our founding fathers did not have Socialism in mind when they designed the foundation of our country.

Also, the words Republic and Democracy are mutually exclusive.

Representative Republic and Democracy are not.

However, majority does not rule in a Representative Republic. 2/3rds vote is required to get past a Presidential Veto. Although a "majority", it's a lot more than the 51 votes needed to get the bill passed to begin with. Thus placing the decision in the hands of one individual, whom is not elected by the majority.

And since the 51st vote cast in some cases could be the Vice President and the President and Vice President are not elected based on the Democratic "Majority Rules", this is the major difference between a Democracy and a Representative Republic.

For those of you who like to twist the words "General Welfare" in our constitution to mean a "Welfare" society, then you are correct, it would mean Communism.

National Defense, the Federal Governments #1 role. The "General Welfare" you are all so eager to climb on refers to "protection" of the General Welfare. Not the taking over of personal freedoms for the betterment of the "General Welfare". In a Democracy, if a majority of the people agree, the law passes. In a Representative Republic, if that law tramples the rights of even one individual, then it is by Constitutional Law illegal.

The "Preamble" does NOT refer to the functions of the Federal Government. If you read the Constitution, it lays out where those functions belong, not all of which is the Federal Government.

The issue we have is that somewhere along the line, our 3 branches of government didn't cancel each other out as they were designed to do when a question of Constitutional Law was in question. There is more power reserved to the States then there is to the Federal Government. Most people have no idea what their rights truly are (Welfare, Social Security, Health Care, etc are not rights). And it was because of this that the Federal Government was able to string together enough laws that violate our personal freedom to get them elected and keep them elected that our Government is not what it was intended to be.

My personal belief is that we re-elect no one at any level of government. There is something wrong with a job where you decide how much money you make, how many benefits you get, how many parties the people get to pay for, and who you are taking money from to pay for your life. That isn't a representative of the people, that is a parasite. If you limit terms and make the job undesirable, then you will only get people in there who care about you, not what a corporation wants or any lobby. This is about our future as a country, not about what some dillhole who has been in there for 30 years thinks. They are so out of touch with reality it isn't even funny. Until that change is made, we are doomed.

The second you hand over a personal freedom, like say smoking (and I do not smoke), you have laid the ground work for the government to intrude into every aspect of your life and your personal freedom is no longer yours.

[hoosier]

The General Welfare of the United States does not include a bridge to no where, public education, health care, welfare, social security or any other of the socio-economic programs that I pay for.

Whether that's true or not, this is your definition of "General Welfare," not the Constitution's. The problem with your argument is that you're mixing a literalist interpretation of the Constitution with your own interpretation, and then trying to pass the whole thing off as literal meaning.

[Merlin]

If you want to know what the Constitution stands for, look no further then the Declaration if Independence. Since you are confusing opinion with fact, find the section where it says the Government should control everyone and everything please. And while you are at it, think about what it says carefully and compare it to our current Government and show me where there is any real difference between the British Rule they experienced back then and the Federal "Rule" we endure now:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

It doesn't take a leap of faith to go from the principles of the Declaration of Independence and apply the same "literal" logic to the Constitution. It is not my opinion sir, it is what it is.

Finally, as the Declaration of Independence states, it is our duty as the governed to throw out a government that does not protect our rights as stated ~ "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would like to see those studies, because that assertion does not pass the smell test. :?: :?: :?:

Sorry, but you are wrong. The U.S. Arms Industry is the second most heavily subsidized industry after agriculture.

Defense is not a good thing economically, if you wanna argue that it is vital to our survival that is another thing.

Money spent on defense could be spent on other areas that would create far more jobs. Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy by Robert Higgs (Oxford University Press: 2006);

As Dave Barry said:

See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.


Couple of facts:

The Center for International Policy estimates that around 80% of U.S. arms exports to the developing world go to non-democratic regimes.

In Fiscal Year 1999, the United States delivered roughly $6.8 billion in armaments to nations which violate the basic standards of human rights (figure is conservative and based only on countries with major human rights problems).

U.S. arms or U.S. military technology were used by adversaries confronting U.S. soldiers in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti. A significant portion of the $6 billion in covert U.S. arms and training sent to Afghan rebel groups in the 1980s was funneled to right-wing Islamic fundamentalist forces that now use these resources to attack U.S. allies and citizens.

[Partial]

As Dave Barry said:

See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.

I don't know who David Barry is, but just because you're creating jobs doesn't mean the money is being well-spent. See a county worker, for example.

Privatization of government funding would be the best thing to happen to America. Companies that want to turn profit will get it done and get it done fast.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As Dave Barry said:

See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.

I don't know who David Barry is, but just because you're creating jobs doesn't mean the money is being well-spent. See a county worker, for example.

Privatization of government funding would be the best thing to happen to America. Companies that want to turn profit will get it done and get it done fast.

You've completely missed the point. His point is the gov't is poor way or creating jobs. And, defense industry is exactly that.

Privitization is not a cure all. What about accountability? Companies are there to make money for there shareholders, not to do what is best for the country. Perhaps you think rogue armies in Iraq are doing the right thing?

If you think privitization is good, then you need to take a history course and read about Rome..pretty much doomed it.

[the_idle_threat]

I would like to see those studies, because that assertion does not pass the smell test. :?: :?: :?:

Sorry, but you are wrong. The U.S. Arms Industry is the second most heavily subsidized industry after agriculture.

Defense is not a good thing economically, if you wanna argue that it is vital to our survival that is another thing.

Money spent on defense could be spent on other areas that would create far more jobs. Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy by Robert Higgs (Oxford University Press: 2006);

As Dave Barry said:

See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.


Couple of facts:

The Center for International Policy estimates that around 80% of U.S. arms exports to the developing world go to non-democratic regimes.

In Fiscal Year 1999, the United States delivered roughly $6.8 billion in armaments to nations which violate the basic standards of human rights (figure is conservative and based only on countries with major human rights problems).

U.S. arms or U.S. military technology were used by adversaries confronting U.S. soldiers in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti. A significant portion of the $6 billion in covert U.S. arms and training sent to Afghan rebel groups in the 1980s was funneled to right-wing Islamic fundamentalist forces that now use these resources to attack U.S. allies and citizens.

You're not sorry, and I'm not wrong. :P

I'm not making any kind of bold assertion here; I just want to see what studies OPF is talking about in the following quote (emphasis added):


That line of thought that defense industry creates jobs is a myth. Economic studies had clearly demonstrated that if you take a million dollars to create jobs be it in health care, transportation, education or other areas, the industry that creates the FEWEST jobs is defense.

This quote is not credible to me without citation. Where are these multiple "studies" that "clearly show" that defense spending creates fewer jobs than any other type of spending?

Surely you would make the same request if I wrote something like: Economic studies have clearly demonstrated that the long-term effect of Reaganomics was actually a massive increase in real wealth for America's poor and middle classes. :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would like to see those studies, because that assertion does not pass the smell test. :?: :?: :?:

Sorry, but you are wrong. The U.S. Arms Industry is the second most heavily subsidized industry after agriculture.

Defense is not a good thing economically, if you wanna argue that it is vital to our survival that is another thing.

Money spent on defense could be spent on other areas that would create far more jobs. Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy by Robert Higgs (Oxford University Press: 2006);

As Dave Barry said:

See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.


Couple of facts:

The Center for International Policy estimates that around 80% of U.S. arms exports to the developing world go to non-democratic regimes.

In Fiscal Year 1999, the United States delivered roughly $6.8 billion in armaments to nations which violate the basic standards of human rights (figure is conservative and based only on countries with major human rights problems).

U.S. arms or U.S. military technology were used by adversaries confronting U.S. soldiers in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti. A significant portion of the $6 billion in covert U.S. arms and training sent to Afghan rebel groups in the 1980s was funneled to right-wing Islamic fundamentalist forces that now use these resources to attack U.S. allies and citizens.

You're not sorry, and I'm not wrong. :P

I'm not making any kind of bold assertion here; I just want to see what studies OPF is talking about in the following quote (emphasis added):


That line of thought that defense industry creates jobs is a myth. Economic studies had clearly demonstrated that if you take a million dollars to create jobs be it in health care, transportation, education or other areas, the industry that creates the FEWEST jobs is defense.

This quote is not credible to me without citation. Where are these multiple "studies" that "clearly show" that defense spending creates fewer jobs than any other type of spending?

Surely you would make the same request if I wrote something like: Economic studies have clearly demonstrated that the long-term effect of Reaganomics was actually a massive increase in real wealth for America's poor and middle classes. :wink:

Read the book i posted. There are numerous studies. It is well known, and an established fact in economics. Because you don't know doesn't put the burden on us..it is on you. I've given you a source...read it.

How about this: http://www.njfac.org/quiz-mil.pdf

Reagan: I wouldn't have any problem with accepting that there were studies. It would be my job to come up with the refuting studies.

[the_idle_threat]

Read the book i posted. There are numerous studies. It is well known, and an established fact in economics. Because you don't know doesn't put the burden on us..it is on you. I've given you a source...read it.

How about this: http://www.njfac.org/quiz-mil.pdf

Reagan: I wouldn't have any problem with accepting that there were studies. It would be my job to come up with the refuting studies.


:bs2: :bs2: :bs2: :bs2: :bs2: :bs2: :bs2: :bs2:

I'm not going to read the book you posted. Do you have the time to read any book I assign to you?

If this is a "well-known" fact in economics, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with sources on the web. Sources that actually reveal their methodology rather than just tell you something and expect you to blindly believe it.

When somebody makes a spurious factual claim, the burden is on them to provide sources to show it is not :bs2: . The burden is never on the skeptics. At least not in the real world. Maybe things are different in your world.

[Joemailman]

Hard to find any recent information on subsidization of the arms industry, but I did find this from 1999:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa350.pdf

[Freak Out]

Speaking of defense spending......freaking Bandar and the Saud gang.


Saudi Prince Allegedly Made $2B in 1985 Arms Deal
Media Reports Revive Questions Surrounding $80B Deal Between U.K., Saudi Arabia

By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 7, 2007; 4:14 PM

LONDON, June 7 -- Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a member of Saudi Arabia's royal family and the kingdom's former ambassador to the United States, pocketed about $2 billion in secret payments as part of a $80 billion arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia first signed in 1985, British media reported Thursday.

The reports revived questions about the British government's decision in December to drop a fraud investigation into the deal, which has been plagued by allegations of bribes and secret slush funds for almost two decades.

In remarks Thursday, Prime Minister Tony Blair did not comment directly on the reports made on the BBC and in the Guardian newspaper. But he repeated his often-made defense of the decision to drop the investigation on national security grounds.

"This investigation, if it had it gone ahead, would have involved the most serious allegations in investigations being made into the Saudi royal family," Blair said at a meeting of the Group of Eight nations in Germany.

He added, "My job is to give advice as to whether that is a sensible thing in circumstances where I don't believe the investigation incidentally would have led anywhere except to the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship for our country. . . . Quite apart from the fact that we would have lost thousands, thousands of British jobs."

Prince Bandar declined to comment, according to the news outlets. A spokesman for BAE Systems, the arms manufacturer involved, denied any wrongdoing and told the Guardian that the company had "acted in accordance with the relevant contracts." BAE Systems is Europe's largest defense contractor, with annual sales of more than $22 billion, according to the company Web site.

The contract, signed when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, provided for the sale of 120 fighter jets and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia over more than 20 years. Saudi Arabia paid the British government in oil. Bandar helped negotiate the deal, known as Al Yamamah, which means "the dove" in Arabic.

According to the British media reports, BAE funneled secret payments into an account in Washington controlled by Bandar, who reportedly received at least 120 million pounds, or about $240 million at current exchange rates, every year for at least 10 years.

Bandar, who left Washington in 2005 after 22 years as ambassador and now serves as Saudi Arabia's national security adviser, reportedly used part of the money to operate his private Airbus aircraft.

Britain's Ministry of Defense was aware of and authorized the secret payments to Bandar despite repeated government denials that any such "commissions" had been paid, according to the reports. A ministry spokesman on Thursday declined to comment on the allegations because that "would involve disclosing confidential information about Al Yamamah and that would cause the damage that ending the investigation was designed to prevent."

The secret payments were reportedly discovered during an investigation by the government's Serious Fraud Office. British officials shut down that probe in December, citing national security concerns.

In January, Blair said that pursuing the investigation would have been "devastating for our relationship with an important country with whom we cooperate closely on terrorism, on security, on the Middle East peace process and a host of other issues."

Both the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the U.S. government protested the decision.

On Thursday, Jack Straw, a top Labor Party member of Parliament, said the government's prime concern in the case was maintaining security cooperation with Saudi Arabia at a time of increasing threats from Islamic extremists.

"There are some difficult choices to be made here but we face a very serious terrorist threat in this county," Straw said in Parliament. "We vitally need cooperation, as we have received, from, amongst others, Saudi Arabia, and the prime minister was absolutely right in not seeking to jeopardize that."

But Roger Berry, a Labor Party member who chairs a parliamentary committee that reviews arms deals, called for the reports to be "properly investigated."

"It's bad for British business, apart from anything else, if allegations of bribery popping around aren't investigated," Berry told BBC radio.