Terrorists use children who don't want to die . .

[jn]

Here's some numbers X3.   By the way when you talk about "I suppose our military was created just to sit around and look pretty"  you are mirroring Madeline Albright who was ripped conservative detractors when she said "What good is our splendid military if we aren't going to use it."

Washington, D.C. . . .While the rest of the world is cutting military spending, the United States is adding billions to its military budget.

President Bush told the nation yesterday that the U.S. military budget for fiscal 2003 will be $379 billion, an increase of $48 billion over fiscal year 2002.

"The U.S. increase of $48 billion is larger than that the annual military budget of any other country in the world," said John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World.

"At a time when the U.S. should be most concerned with homeland defense and a highly mobile force to combat terrorism abroad, the budget is going to continue to fund billions of dollars in aircraft, submarines, ships and other weapons designed to fight the Soviet Union," Isaacs continued.

"Adding $48 billion to the Pentagon budget is like providing an overweight person with dozens of fat-filled deserts; rather than forcing the Pentagon to diet to be more trim and focus on transformation, the military will try to buy more of everything," he concluded.

* The U.S. figure is a future budget authority total; the other country

figures are from past years and are outlay totals.

Military Budget - Countries

$ 379 billion (2003) - United States
$48 billion - increase from Fiscal 2002 to 2003

$ 34.8 billion ( 2001 ) - United Kingdom

$ 29 billion ( 2000 ) - Russia

$ 27 billion ( 2000 ) - France

$ 23.1 billion ( 2001 ) - Germany

$ 18.7 billion ( 2000 ) - Saudi Arabia

$ 15.9 billion ( 2000 ) - India

$ 14.5 billion ( 2000 ) - China

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - South Korea

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Taiwan

$ 7.5 billion ( 2000 ) - Iran

$ 3.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Pakistan

$ 1.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Syria

$ 1.4 billion ( 1999 ) - Iraq

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - North Korea

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Yugoslavia

$ 1.2 billion ( 2000 ) - Libya

$ 425 million ( 2000) - Sudan

$ 31 million ( 2000 ) - Cuba

Source: The International Institute for Strategic Studies
 

[spursfan101]

What you fail to mention is how many "billions"(of outdated dinars no less) is Al Quaida throwing at their military??  We have to keep up with Al Quaia, and spending billions on military and not infiltrating their organizations is the way to get this done. Here's how it works. We spend a billion on a tank. They spend $23 on a kid to blow himself up at the Gaza strip.

You demo's just don't get it, do ya? :blink:  

[SPURSX3]

Here's some numbers X3.   By the way when you talk about "I suppose our military was created just to sit around and look pretty"  you are mirroring Madeline Albright who was ripped conservative detractors when she said "What good is our splendid military if we aren't going to use it."

Washington, D.C. . . .While the rest of the world is cutting military spending, the United States is adding billions to its military budget.

President Bush told the nation yesterday that the U.S. military budget for fiscal 2003 will be $379 billion, an increase of $48 billion over fiscal year 2002.

"The U.S. increase of $48 billion is larger than that the annual military budget of any other country in the world," said John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World.

"At a time when the U.S. should be most concerned with homeland defense and a highly mobile force to combat terrorism abroad, the budget is going to continue to fund billions of dollars in aircraft, submarines, ships and other weapons designed to fight the Soviet Union," Isaacs continued.

"Adding $48 billion to the Pentagon budget is like providing an overweight person with dozens of fat-filled deserts; rather than forcing the Pentagon to diet to be more trim and focus on transformation, the military will try to buy more of everything," he concluded.

* The U.S. figure is a future budget authority total; the other country

figures are from past years and are outlay totals.

Military Budget - Countries

$ 379 billion (2003) - United States
$48 billion - increase from Fiscal 2002 to 2003

$ 34.8 billion ( 2001 ) - United Kingdom

$ 29 billion ( 2000 ) - Russia

$ 27 billion ( 2000 ) - France

$ 23.1 billion ( 2001 ) - Germany

$ 18.7 billion ( 2000 ) - Saudi Arabia

$ 15.9 billion ( 2000 ) - India

$ 14.5 billion ( 2000 ) - China

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - South Korea

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Taiwan

$ 7.5 billion ( 2000 ) - Iran

$ 3.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Pakistan

$ 1.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Syria

$ 1.4 billion ( 1999 ) - Iraq

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - North Korea

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Yugoslavia

$ 1.2 billion ( 2000 ) - Libya

$ 425 million ( 2000) - Sudan

$ 31 million ( 2000 ) - Cuba

Source: The International Institute for Strategic Studies

there has GOT to be something missing from that total.  the UK alone is hard to believe it could or would get by on such a small number when you compare the value of the pound to the us dollar.  something has to be missing jn.

[jn]

Here's a link to some different numbers.  Even with the higher numbers listed we still VASTLY outspend.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html


And no, there really DOESN'T have to be something else.  We just plain have that much more money to spend and a desire to spend it on the military.  This has been true for many years.  

[WayOutWest]

Why haven't we invaded China?  The whole world say what they did at Tenium Square (sic?).  Is the US just a PUNK ARSE BITCH that only picks on the little guys?

I'm sick and tired about the BS statements of taking out a "brutal" dictator.  That's NOT why the US went in there!  There are plenty of brutal dicators/govs that we turn a blind eye to and even buddy up to them.

How can rational people argue this?

[SPURSX3]

Why haven't we invaded China?  The whole world say what they did at Tenium Square (sic?).  Is the US just a PUNK ARSE BITCH that only picks on the little guys?

I'm sick and tired about the BS statements of taking out a "brutal" dictator.  That's NOT why the US went in there!  There are plenty of brutal dicators/govs that we turn a blind eye to and even buddy up to them.

How can rational people argue this?

interesting facts and tid bits jn, news to me indeed.  will haveto think some on that info to be for sure.


Wow, never said it was about brutal dictators only, i think resources and investments have a lot to do with how we pick and chose our fights, other haiti and africa would be on the top of the list...

[Lurker]

Why haven't we invaded China?  The whole world say what they did at Tenium Square (sic?).  Is the US just a PUNK ARSE BITCH that only picks on the little guys?

I'm sick and tired about the BS statements of taking out a "brutal" dictator.  That's NOT why the US went in there!  There are plenty of brutal dicators/govs that we turn a blind eye to and even buddy up to them.

How can rational people argue this?

interesting facts and tid bits jn, news to me indeed.  will haveto think some on that info to be for sure.


Wow, never said it was about brutal dictators only, i think resources and investments have a lot to do with how we pick and chose our fights, other haiti and africa would be on the top of the list...

But why was Iraq at the top of the list?

Because GW wanted to get Saddam?

None of the other reasons...er, excuses...have proven valid.

[Ted]

"Tiananmen Square" you flogging moron.

[Lurker]

"Tiananmen Square" you flogging moron.

Hey he admitted he was sick (sic).  What more does you want?    

[Ted]

Hey, I'll be honest; I had to look it up. But at least I looked it up!

No really, I just wanted to type the words "flogging moron." That's got to be the best "churching-up" of profanity I've ever seen.

[SPURSX3]

Why haven't we invaded China?  The whole world say what they did at Tenium Square (sic?).  Is the US just a PUNK ARSE BITCH that only picks on the little guys?

I'm sick and tired about the BS statements of taking out a "brutal" dictator.  That's NOT why the US went in there!  There are plenty of brutal dicators/govs that we turn a blind eye to and even buddy up to them.

How can rational people argue this?

interesting facts and tid bits jn, news to me indeed.  will haveto think some on that info to be for sure.


Wow, never said it was about brutal dictators only, i think resources and investments have a lot to do with how we pick and chose our fights, other haiti and africa would be on the top of the list...

But why was Iraq at the top of the list?

Because GW wanted to get Saddam?

None of the other reasons...er, excuses...have proven valid.

oh i am sure the fact that it is the worlds second largest source of crude had nothing to do with it either.......like i said, resources.

[WayOutWest]

other haiti and africa would be on the top of the list...

That's exactly what some of are saying but the apologist don't want to face the OBVIOUS facts.  Like the administrations their followers throw up smoke screens and red herrings to try and AVOID that arguments.

[Lurker]

other haiti and africa would be on the top of the list...

That's exactly what some of are saying but the apologist don't want to face the OBVIOUS facts.  Like the administrations their followers throw up smoke screens and red herrings to try and AVOID that arguments.

Would you two please try using some semblance of English.  The translator on my computer has worn out.

 :ph34r:  

[jn]

"smoke screens and red herrings to try and AVOID that arguments."

Mmmmm....smoked herring.  
 

[SPURSX3]

other haiti and africa would be on the top of the list...

That's exactly what some of are saying but the apologist don't want to face the OBVIOUS facts.  Like the administrations their followers throw up smoke screens and red herrings to try and AVOID that arguments.

if there was an arguement to begin with.  show me any country that has gone in to protect another nation just for "good will" when it was not a world war or something that affected our resources, economy, or influence.