You're the one talking about how the USA is the leader of the free world
Inflation was just one of the drivers of higher running costs (and therefore higher expenditure without higher capability) that I mentioned. You don't address the rest nor do you provide evidence for your claim that European military strength is greater now than at any time for the last fifty years, which includes the height of the Cold War. If you want to be taken seriously then you are going to need to find that evidence and link to it.Bertster7 wrote:
And over those 5 years we are looking at around 10% inflation. Those budgets have gone up by a damn sight more than 10%.Kuffar wrote:
Costs rise over time. It gets more expensive to buy new equipment as technology gets more sophisticated. It also gets mroe expensive to maintain old equipment as it ages. Inflation is at work. Salaries rise etc, etc. Large amounts are dedicated to politically driven defence procurement efforts that bring little actual increase in capability, even if the weapon system in question arrives.Bertster7 wrote:
Lets look at a couple of examples:
The UK spent $42.8 billion on defence in 2004 (source: globalsecurity.org). The UK budget for 2009 is $68.9 billion (source: The MOD).
France spent $45 billion on defence in 2005, they currently spend $74.6 billion.
And you claim these are cuts?
What does the percentage of GDP have to do with anything? European nations have prospered, GDPs have risen rapidly and there is more money to be spent. How does this affect anything, in practical terms.
This means that while individual countries can spend more in absolute terms (and you have selected the two highest spending big powers, one of which is fighting two wars) their actual military capabilities can still be actually degrading vis a vis their actual and potential enemies. Military forces can also be configured in the wrong way to face the changing threats of the post-cold war world. All tanks and no UAV makes the Spec Ops a happy boy for example.
Using the GDP measure gives a useful indication of the relative priorities that nations place on military spending and can also indicate how committed they are to maintaining and updating an independent defence capability.
You can't just spend a load and then maintain it. It's like IT. It develops constantly.
You are chatting complete rubbish and that is plain for all to see.
Also, you said "vis a vis" , which makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously.
And you are the one claiming there have been defence cuts. Yet there have in fact been huge increases in military expenditure, which far outstrip inflation. In fact European militaries are probably at the strongest they have been for the past half a century.
I have shown that many EU nations have been cutting expenditure as a portion of GDP over time. If you remove US forces and non-EU forces from NATO you will find that the EU's defence capability is not what you think it is. If you separate out individual EU nations, particularly from Old Europe, you will find even less impressive capability.
You may have a point about 'vis a vis' however.
I think not.Kuffar wrote:
I have shown that many EU nations have been cutting expenditure as a portion of GDP over time. If you remove US forces and non-EU forces from NATO you will find that the EU's defence capability is not what you think it is. If you separate out individual EU nations, particularly from Old Europe, you will find even less impressive capability.
well that sucksKuffar wrote:
Not getting rid of me that easily my friend.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I think people like Kuffar should just go live in the US. Maybe he'll feel more at home.
I doubt if you asked the countries of South America, has the USA institutionalised freedom, they would agree.Kuffar wrote:
Lolling at the idea of EUrope defending itself against any threat without the US. The US is the leader of the free world for a number of reasons, not least that it has, more successfully than any other country on the planet, institutionalised freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the individual.
Freedom is not a burden here. We are generally socialist with policies which aim to protect every citizen, not just big business. I would say that is democracy in itself.Kuffar wrote:
Europe, in general, finds freedom a burden and prefers the suffocations of social democracy and collectivism.
That is trueKuffar wrote:
Hitler would have won without the US.
Not necessarily true. The USA and Russia tit for tat escalated the cold war to envelope in some way much of the developed world as well has spawning a hundred proxy wars. So we should thank you for stopping something you helped start? No thanksKuffar wrote:
The Soviets would have won without the US.
The US (and UK) have created more Islamic extremism than they have removed, by invading Islamic countries using deception to gain control of oil.Kuffar wrote:
If we are to defeat Islamic supremacism we cannot do so without the US. These have been the most direct challenges to freedom by totalitarianism in our recent history. The US has proved itself a worthy leader and defender of freedom when it has counted most.
Look. The USA like every other country on earth is thinking about number one always. Its often dressed up in liberation and freedom, but ultimately its for the gain of said country.Kuffar wrote:
It will do so again. Not because other freeish nations like the UK and European nations deserve it, but because defending freedom is in its DNA.
From this sentence I gather that your understanding of "freedom" is wildly distorted and has nothing to do with the true notion of the word.Kuffar wrote:
Europe, in general, finds freedom a burden and prefers the suffocations of social democracy and collectivism.
ƒ³
EDIT: All countries put themselves first, of course, no doubt about it. But the my view is that the US regards having politically and economically free, democratic states around as fundamentally in its interests. So do some other states but none has quite the relationship with liberty that the US has, in my view.JahManRed wrote:
I doubt if you asked the countries of South America, has the USA institutionalised freedom, they would agree.Kuffar wrote:
Lolling at the idea of EUrope defending itself against any threat without the US. The US is the leader of the free world for a number of reasons, not least that it has, more successfully than any other country on the planet, institutionalised freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the individual.
EDIT: I meant constitutionally. And it seems that one or two of S. America's former citizens prefer life in the US.Freedom is not a burden here. We are generally socialist with policies which aim to protect every citizen, not just big business. I would say that is democracy in itself.Kuffar wrote:
Europe, in general, finds freedom a burden and prefers the suffocations of social democracy and collectivism.
EDIT: Socialism is not individual freedom, it is collectivism. Ultimately my belief is that socialism has been shown to fail where ever it has been tried and in fact what is being tried in much of Europe is social democracy which is not quite the same, although it replaces individual action and self-reliance with state intervention in a similar way. Anyway, we won't agree about that, I'm English and do not regard England as a socialist country.That is trueKuffar wrote:
Hitler would have won without the US.Not necessarily true. The USA and Russia tit for tat escalated the cold war to envelope in some way much of the developed world as well has spawning a hundred proxy wars. So we should thank you for stopping something you helped start? No thanksKuffar wrote:
The Soviets would have won without the US.
EDIT: I'm not a yank, I'm a limey who regards Communism as genuinely evil. An economically and politically free ideology overcame a tyrannous one in a global struggle. That would not have been achieved by Europe alone.The US (and UK) have created more Islamic extremism than they have removed, by invading Islamic countries using deception to gain control of oil.Kuffar wrote:
If we are to defeat Islamic supremacism we cannot do so without the US. These have been the most direct challenges to freedom by totalitarianism in our recent history. The US has proved itself a worthy leader and defender of freedom when it has counted most.
EDIT: It has cost the US far more in blood, treasure and having to listen to whining than it will ever get back in oil from Iraq, which was a secular state not an Islamic one. Afghanistan I don't think has much oil. Which other Islamic countries were you referring to? Oh yes, and Islamic supremacists were attacking the US and US interests long before the first Iraq war when the US stepped in on Kuwait's behalf.Look. The USA like every other country on earth is thinking about number one always. Its often dressed up in liberation and freedom, but ultimately its for the gain of said country.Kuffar wrote:
It will do so again. Not because other freeish nations like the UK and European nations deserve it, but because defending freedom is in its DNA.
Which is?oug wrote:
From this sentence I gather that your understanding of "freedom" is wildly distorted and has nothing to do with the true notion of the word.Kuffar wrote:
Europe, in general, finds freedom a burden and prefers the suffocations of social democracy and collectivism.
Part of being a proponent of freedom and democracy as leader of the free world...
...is to refrain from lecturing the so-called followers.
...is to refrain from lecturing the so-called followers.
I'm English old boy (if you mean me and aren't making a general point) and even if I weren't just about the only thing Europe really excels at is sanctimonious lecturing.
I hink we have a live one here.Kuffar wrote:
Europe, in general, finds freedom a burden and prefers the suffocations of social democracy and collectivism.
Don't forget large multi-syllabic words too.Kuffar wrote:
I'm English old boy (if you mean me and aren't making a general point) and even if I weren't just about the only thing Europe really excels at is sanctimonious lecturing.
Apologies for thinking you live in New Jersey instead of Old Jersey.
George W. Bush has a condition of which doctors refer to as a "Rectal Cranial inversion". . . . .