BF2S Forums Defense spending

Shocking wrote:

menzo wrote:

it is sad that their budget is small, but the constellation program wasn't the best. with their new commercial approach it seems they are o9n the right track but i think they also should have their own rocket.

Would've been worth it regardless the cost imo. There were still theoretical hurdles to overcome though like radiation exposure which would kill people on the way to Mars. But; it's gonna happen sooner or later, and rather sooner.

What they've done now is throw 8 years of work out of the window.

Commercialising space won't just happen because you want it. That should come naturally

Shocking wrote:

menzo wrote:

not out of the window, they will not forget the new things they discovered. The design is a bit of a waste yeh

Yeah not quite but, if memory serves me right, they already finished a couple modules.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

menzo wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

28% of taxes huh? Where can I find what every other cent of the remaining 72% is spent on?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … tegory.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite … ral_budget

Are you kidding me? Worst labels EVER!

Here's some dark blue for this, oh and some more dark blue, so you get to play guessing games, we'll also add the same shade of red thirty times.

Shocking wrote:

I would argue it has actually had an opposite effect. To justify your extreme military budget the US seems to get itself involved militarily in just about any conflict it can - which has made your country hugely impopular around the globe. Undoubtedly the past ten years have had devastating effects on the diplomatic relations with lots and lots of nations. Even within the European Union, supposed to be your staunchest allies, you'll be able to find anti-US sentiments in almost half, if not half of the population. Going around appearing like the big bad bogeyman could have far reaching consequences for the future of your nation.

It's had to effect that countries whose support you need in combatting terrorism are non compliant, and that you've gotten yourself an enemy that is very, very hard to defeat. 10 years on since the invasion of Afghanistan and the fighting in some areas of the nation seem to be just as intense as they were at the beginning of the invasion.  The way the conflict has been managed and getting involved in it in such a way has had to an effect that you're actually feeding the anti-US sentiment, while the goal was to remove this - it's what got you involved in the first place! Although the failure here could be blamed on gross mismanagement of the war by the people in the upper echelons of your military circles. Nevertheless, that's still not all there is to it.

I meant it when I said the biggest threat to global security and stability, ironically seems to be the US. Although the collapse of the soviet union has had a lot to do with the current world situation, the US has not properly adapted itself and somehow managed to rationalise going on the same course while the big enemy had already been defeated.

11 Bravo wrote:

paki aint an ally.  never was.  oh sure it was made out to be but i do not know any sane person who thought they liked us...ever.

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

paki aint an ally.  never was.  oh sure it was made out to be but i do not know any sane person who thought they liked us...ever.

It was never a real ally, but the govt was reasonably pro-western - thanks to bribes - and the population wasn't really agitating.

Now we could see the govt overthrown and replaced with fundamentalists - thanks mainly to US foreign policy ineptitude.

don't think so

i talk to pakistani ex-pats and folks within pakistan on other forums quite often. they are all in agreement that 95% of pakistan's problems stem from pakistan itself. nepotism, corruption, the works.

Spearhead wrote:

on facebook :

Dear Mr. President, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut down all the congressmen's pay, too. If people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? REPOST if you support troops

is this true?