Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 9

 

2011-01-23 07:24:47
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6990

JohnG@lt wrote:

dayarath wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:


USSR.
That is the most extreme example you could've given, besides it's radically different from western socialism.

All of Europe is socialist in comparison with the US and honestly most of us are doing fine.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Without the natural resources it wouldn't be able to sustain most of its social programs. Same goes for Norway and its oil fields. Or Canada and its mining/oil/timber. The US does not have the natural resources that those nations possess and thus it would not work. Unless you have exportable commodities the system falls flat on its face, and if you do have those commodities the system lasts as long as they do. You're mortgaging the future for today.
France? UK? Netherlands? Germany?
Dead, Dying, Irrelevant, and illusion. I say Illusion for Germany because it has, over the last two decades, been exporting the vast bulk of its manufacturing jobs to the Czech Republic, Poland etc in order to avoid its own unions.
Mediterranean Europe is pretty fucked too. Holland is only surviving because of it's ports.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-01-23 07:27:14
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dead, Dying, Irrelevant, and illusion. I say Illusion for Germany because it has, over the last two decades, been exporting the vast bulk of its manufacturing jobs to the Czech Republic, Poland etc in order to avoid its own unions.
And add Denmark to the list, they're all examples of how a semi-socialist state can work. That there's polishing that needs to be done (as we're seeing right now) doesn't mean the system in itself is inherently flawed. I would hardly call the UK and France "dead and dying" - yes, everyone's cutting significantly in their budgets all across the board right now but let's be honest, who isn't? It's only necessary if we want to keep the EU afloat.

I would hardly call NL irrelevant because it's a trade gateway for the rest of Europe, it has been that way for a long time because there are no natural resources in the country whatsoever. Trade is all that keeps it alive, particularily with Germany and vice versa.

Yes, unions are a problem and if the economy keeps getting worse they'll be removed rather quickly is my prediction. Manufacturing jobs aren't simply offered more to immigrant workers because of unions though, but because there have been quite massive shortages of people who want to work in jobs with almost no schooling requirements, low wage and little hope of a future in the business. Considering more and more people in the US are going to college I'd assume you are having the same problems aswell.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 07:29:09
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+564|6988|Purplicious Wisconsin

JohnG@lt wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Not for much longer with the way your government is fucking over the minerals industry.
As far as I know, the mining companies fought back and there as been little or no impact on the mining industry at all.
That's good then. I know they were trying to hit them with a windfall tax or some shit a few months ago.

The Aussies do a lot of things right. Superannuation is a winner. So is the total lack of national debt.

If we could convince our right wingers to rape the military and pare it down to a size necessary only to defend our borders we'd be a lot better off. Won't happen though. Too many fucking nationalistic flag wavers for it to ever happen
We dramatically cut our military funding and numbers after world war 2, we payed the price of being unprepared in the Korean War. I rather we not be unprepared again.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2011-01-23 07:31:54
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...

War Man wrote:

We dramatically cut our military funding and numbers after world war 2, we payed the price of being unprepared in the Korean War. I rather we not be unprepared again.
You spend about 6% of your budget on military funding, that's a ridiculous amount. Could pipe down with 2% and you'd still be ahead of everyone who could realistically pose a threat of sorts.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 07:35:27
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6990

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

We dramatically cut our military funding and numbers after world war 2, we payed the price of being unprepared in the Korean War. I rather we not be unprepared again.
You spend about 6% of your budget on military funding, that's a ridiculous amount. Could pipe down with 2% and you'd still be ahead of everyone who could realistically pose a threat of sorts.
It's more like 4% and most of it goes to the salary of servicemen.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-01-23 07:35:50
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

dayarath wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dead, Dying, Irrelevant, and illusion. I say Illusion for Germany because it has, over the last two decades, been exporting the vast bulk of its manufacturing jobs to the Czech Republic, Poland etc in order to avoid its own unions.
And add Denmark to the list, they're all examples of how a semi-socialist state can work. That there's polishing that needs to be done (as we're seeing right now) doesn't mean the system in itself is inherently flawed. I would hardly call the UK and France "dead and dying" - yes, everyone's cutting significantly in their budgets all across the board right now but let's be honest, who isn't? It's only necessary if we want to keep the EU afloat.

I would hardly call NL irrelevant because it's a trade gateway for the rest of Europe, it has been that way for a long time because there are no natural resources in the country whatsoever. Trade is all that keeps it alive, particularily with Germany and vice versa.

Yes, unions are a problem and if the economy keeps getting worse they'll be removed rather quickly is my prediction. Manufacturing jobs aren't simply offered more to immigrant workers because of unions though, but because there have been quite massive shortages of people who want to work in jobs with almost no schooling requirements, low wage and little hope of a future in the business. Considering more and more people in the US are going to college I'd assume you are having the same problems aswell.
If you don't call massive unemployment levels, massive state debt, large urban ghettos full of unemployed people in their twenties due to the lifetime guaranteed jobs, employers being kidnapped by their employees when layoffs are threatened, and riots occurring on a semi-monthly basis, a dead country whose ideas have failed then I don't know what you would call success. France is pretty much a how-to guide of what not to do as a government.

I labeled England as dying because all it really has left is its financial services industry and the government has been publicly beating them over the head with threats and other garbage ever since the 2007 crash. If they had made good on their threats and those banks had decided to pack up and move elsewhere, your country would be an economic wasteland right now. You don't kill the dairy cow when you're hungry, you make cheese.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 07:38:20
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5976|College Park, MD

Jenspm wrote:

long post
So what's preventing the US from doing this? Norway sounds kinda awesome.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-23 07:44:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

long post
So what's preventing the US from doing this? Norway sounds kinda awesome.
Umm, because its a system where the government decides for the people how they should live their lives? I dunno how many Americans you know, but we're all pretty firm in the belief that we should be free to run our lives as we see fit without government intervention.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 07:46:53
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...

JohnG@lt wrote:

If you don't call massive unemployment levels, massive state debt, large urban ghettos full of unemployed people in their twenties due to the lifetime guaranteed jobs, employers being kidnapped by their employees when layoffs are threatened, and riots occurring on a semi-monthly basis, a dead country whose ideas have failed then I don't know what you would call success. France is pretty much a how-to guide of what not to do as a government.
Sounds like the US minus the riots doesn't it? France officially entered recession really late compared to most other countries though, it's dip was somewhere in 2009-2010 if memory serves me right.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I labeled England as dying because all it really has left is its financial services industry and the government has been publicly beating them over the head with threats and other garbage ever since the 2007 crash. If they had made good on their threats and those banks had decided to pack up and move elsewhere, your country would be an economic wasteland right now. You don't kill the dairy cow when you're hungry, you make cheese.
What can I say? I agree, though you can't blame the gov. for getting pissy with the financial institutions that caused most of the trouble in the first place.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 07:48:35
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5976|College Park, MD

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

long post
So what's preventing the US from doing this? Norway sounds kinda awesome.
Umm, because its a system where the government decides for the people how they should live their lives? I dunno how many Americans you know, but we're all pretty firm in the belief that we should be free to run our lives as we see fit without government intervention.
How much does it really interfere with one's personal life though? Some concrete examples would be appreciated.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-23 07:49:51
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...

Cybargs wrote:

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

We dramatically cut our military funding and numbers after world war 2, we payed the price of being unprepared in the Korean War. I rather we not be unprepared again.
You spend about 6% of your budget on military funding, that's a ridiculous amount. Could pipe down with 2% and you'd still be ahead of everyone who could realistically pose a threat of sorts.
It's more like 4% and most of it goes to the salary of servicemen.
Still atleast 2% more than all other western countries. Believe me, you could manage fine with a substantial budget decrease. That most of the money is spent on salary is the case in every military there is.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 07:51:08
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5976|College Park, MD

War Man wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

dayarath wrote:


You spend about 6% of your budget on military funding, that's a ridiculous amount. Could pipe down with 2% and you'd still be ahead of everyone who could realistically pose a threat of sorts.
It's more like 4% and most of it goes to the salary of servicemen.
Yes, you want to cut the pay of our men and women dayarath? Australia pays their troops more than we do for fucksakes. We'd lose our numbers if we cut pay even more.
He probably meant decreasing the size of the armed forces gradually, and maybe less spending on things like stealth fighters when the most advanced thing our enemy has is an AK-47.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-23 07:51:19
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+564|6988|Purplicious Wisconsin

dayarath wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

dayarath wrote:

You spend about 6% of your budget on military funding, that's a ridiculous amount. Could pipe down with 2% and you'd still be ahead of everyone who could realistically pose a threat of sorts.
It's more like 4% and most of it goes to the salary of servicemen.
Still atleast 2% more than all other western countries. Believe me, you could manage fine with a substantial budget decrease. That most of the money is spent on salary is the case in every military there is.
Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.

Last edited by War Man (2011-01-23 07:52:26)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2011-01-23 07:53:06
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

dayarath wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

If you don't call massive unemployment levels, massive state debt, large urban ghettos full of unemployed people in their twenties due to the lifetime guaranteed jobs, employers being kidnapped by their employees when layoffs are threatened, and riots occurring on a semi-monthly basis, a dead country whose ideas have failed then I don't know what you would call success. France is pretty much a how-to guide of what not to do as a government.
Sounds like the US minus the riots doesn't it? France officially entered recession really late compared to most other countries though, it's dip was somewhere in 2009-2010 if memory serves me right.
Not at all. Our unemployment levels are classically very small in comparison to other nations. This recession is the exception rather than the rule. France and Germany carry 10-15% unemployment rates with or without a recession. Basically, France is in a constant state of recession and has been for decades.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 07:54:06
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


It's more like 4% and most of it goes to the salary of servicemen.
Still atleast 2% more than all other western countries. Believe me, you could manage fine with a substantial budget decrease. That most of the money is spent on salary is the case in every military there is.
Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Why would we go to war with China? Where would this war take place? Give me a rational answer here: How large of a military does the United States need to defend its own borders from invasion?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 07:56:58
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5976|College Park, MD

War Man wrote:

if we go to war with a nation like China
This is the biggest problem I have with arguments in favor of a giant defense budget. It seems there's a paranoia where we're always under the threat of total war with a giant nation, as if we cannot ever use diplomacy and maybe even modify our foreign policy so that countries have no reason to attack us.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-23 07:57:40
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...

War Man wrote:

Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Firstly having bases all over the world, namely those in Europe, seems like a fairly useless investment to me. Secondly, you can actually cut military spending without having to degrade the quality of your armed forces to African levels. (phasing out / removing outdated material faster, decreasing the size of your armed forces over time)

Going to war with China isn't realistic in, at the very least, the coming 30-50 years. Hell, probably not for the entire century.

Last edited by dayarath (2011-01-23 07:58:56)

inane little opines
2011-01-23 07:58:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

War Man wrote:

if we go to war with a nation like China
This is the biggest problem I have with arguments in favor of a giant defense budget. It seems there's a paranoia where we're always under the threat of total war with a giant nation, as if we cannot ever use diplomacy and maybe even modify our foreign policy so that countries have no reason to attack us.
Or, I dunno, we finally realize we are immune to invasion simply because we have thousands of nukes we would use...

War Man sees the US as the natural world police force. He enjoys the very idea of it. That line of thinking gives nationalists +dicksize.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 08:00:23
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+564|6988|Purplicious Wisconsin

JohnG@lt wrote:

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Still atleast 2% more than all other western countries. Believe me, you could manage fine with a substantial budget decrease. That most of the money is spent on salary is the case in every military there is.
Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Why would we go to war with China? Where would this war take place? Give me a rational answer here: How large of a military does the United States need to defend its own borders from invasion?
I'm leaving room for the unknown, you can't predict the future you know. Also I said like China, I didn't speak specifically of China. Could be any real nation

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

War Man wrote:

if we go to war with a nation like China
This is the biggest problem I have with arguments in favor of a giant defense budget. It seems there's a paranoia where we're always under the threat of total war with a giant nation, as if we cannot ever use diplomacy and maybe even modify our foreign policy so that countries have no reason to attack us.
Yeah diplomacy is working great with Iran, they're still developing nukes. Diplomacy can only go so far with certain nations. And modifying our foreign policy won't do anything, radical muslims hate us because of our ways not because of our foreign policy. They rather we live in the stone age like them.

Last edited by War Man (2011-01-23 08:01:34)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2011-01-23 08:01:53
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5453|Sydney
It's not really in any nation's interest to invade the US. The cost would far exceed any perceived benefits.
2011-01-23 08:02:27
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

War Man wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

War Man wrote:


Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Why would we go to war with China? Where would this war take place? Give me a rational answer here: How large of a military does the United States need to defend its own borders from invasion?
I'm leaving room for the unknown, you can't predict the future you know. Also I said like China, I didn't speak specifically of China. Could be any real nation
War Man, we have no threats. No world wars are looming. We could maintain the same military at a fraction of the cost simply by moving the vast majority of our active duty units into a reserve role. Would you be ok with that or does that bother you too?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 08:03:51
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...
Warman, China is completely dependant on the west for economic stability. The west, in turn, imports many, many products that are manufactured in China.

Going to war with them, or them with us would go down in history as one of the most stupid decisions ever.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 08:04:03
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+564|6988|Purplicious Wisconsin

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Firstly having bases all over the world, namely those in Europe, seems like a fairly useless investment to me. Secondly, you can actually cut military spending without having to degrade the quality of your armed forces to African levels. (phasing out / removing outdated material faster, decreasing the size of your armed forces over time)

Going to war with China isn't realistic in, at the very least, the coming 30-50 years. Hell, probably not for the entire century.
Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2011-01-23 08:04:50
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5632|London, England

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Firstly having bases all over the world, namely those in Europe, seems like a fairly useless investment to me. Secondly, you can actually cut military spending without having to degrade the quality of your armed forces to African levels. (phasing out / removing outdated material faster, decreasing the size of your armed forces over time)

Going to war with China isn't realistic in, at the very least, the coming 30-50 years. Hell, probably not for the entire century.
Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
And why exactly are you ok with invading sovereign nations?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 08:07:54
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6273|...

War Man wrote:

Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
Honestly, with current technology you can get anywhere in the world within 24 hours with a gigantic amount of forces. Not to mention the 9 supercarriers the US has in it's fleet. There is absolutely no need for bases everywhere.

Besides that, most bases are placed in already friendly countries, the EU being part of NATO, south korea being dependant on the US in case of NK aggression, the saudis having you as important training partners, I don't think you'll have to worry much about permission in case you'd ever need to ask.
inane little opines

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard