Another Nail in the Coffin of the Former British Empire

Once again, i'll name the old USSR - it was more than capable of everything you mentioned, and was socialist. Is there any particular reason you ignored the post in which i put them forward?

Where do you draw the line on naming a country socialist? is it at national health care? a certain percentage of income taxed? Certain ideas are socialist. certain activities are socialist. But a country isn't socialist unless it goes all the way. In a true socialist country, as quoted previously from wikipedia, the distribution of property and wealth are under social (ie government) control. Countries you've mentioned do have a social agenda, in that they tax the populous in order to provide for the common good (such as national health care). However, they aren't socialist - the government doesn't control the distribution of wealth or property, it simply taxes that wealth and property for the common good, much like we do right here in the US. The only difference is that, instead of spending tons of money each year in insurance and health care like we do here in America, they give that money to the government in the way of taxes.

 

Yes, the USSR couldn't sustain the military costs of keeping up with the US - who can? Currently, the US exceeds the combined spending of the next 20 largest spenders. If you want to talk about military costs, then lets look at a nice chart:



seems like the UK and France, both of whom you've identified as socialists (although that point is still being debated here) are pretty high on the list.

How can you say the UK has gone to a 3rd world military? They still have an army, navy, air force, etc. They're building several new, state of the art air craft carriers. Name one third world country that has a fully maned and armed aircraft carrier. Plus, as seen in the chart above, the UK is the 4th largest military spender in the world.

Lets put some things in perspective, shall we?

So, let me ask you - What country is a direct threat to the UK that we're protecting them from? What country has the military might to be a danger to the UK if we weren't there? Do you really believe that countries like the UK would back off their military spending if not for other factors, such as allies and NATO?

And finally, whats the point of spending tons of money to maintain a military that, in reality, is doing practically nothing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]372533[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

+1 for dbermanmd!

 

Here's military spending as a % of GDP:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_...-percent-of-gdp

Israel has universal healthcare, and they spend more on education(as a % of GDP) than the US. I believe the healthcare alone is enough for people to call them socialist. I haven't heard anyone call their military a slouch.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]372533[/snapback]</div>

The list is here:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2034rank.html

So lets see here... the GDP of country X is twice that of country Y, but their military spending (as a % of GDP) is only 3/4 that of country Y... do the math... carry the one.... ahh yes, country X still has the bigger military because they're still spending more money - more money (not as a % of GPD) means more guns, more soldiers, more planes, more tanks, more warships, more aircraft carriers. (since you're counting squid, erase that point for dbermanmd - it was a worthless point)

So instead, lets look at military spending based on whats being defended (as opposed to the wealth of the country). The US has a pretty large area to protect, and a very large border. The UK, on the other hand, has a pretty small area to protect, and a proportionally small border. i wonder how much money each country spends to protect each and every square kilometer of their territory?

US:
Military spending: 522 billion
Land mass: 9,631,420 km²
$ per square km: $54197.16

UK:
Military spending: 51.1 billion
Land mass: 244,820 km²
$ per square km: $208724.78

how's that for a difference for you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 01:27 PM) [snapback]372583[/snapback]</div>

And yet... you asked, repeatedly, for one example. Since an example was given, i think thats actually a point for the other team, not for you.


At what point since WWII has the US actually stepped in to protect one of the "socialized western countries"? At what point did we position troops on their boarders to stop an aggressor? At what point did our warships patrol and protect their territorial waters?

 

Politically motivated myopic statement alert:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Jan 5 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]371396[/snapback]</div>

Are you inferring since “the Telegraph is a very right wing newspaper†. . . that “sales have been sliding steadily for some time�??
Are you trying to make a point that right wing ideology and its dissemination a dying proposition?

If so: WRONG!

For U.K. Papers, Arena is Shifting in Big Way
“. . .the Internet is siphoning off readers across the range.â€
http://www.fredonia.edu/department/communi...walbe/ukpap.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 8 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]372592[/snapback]</div>

no, dbermanmd still get's the point...

Your new argument senseless!

First, you provide a graph illustrating how much various countries spend on military... It's something like saying, "Oh, I just can't believe Cheryl spent $400 on a pair of shoes!", completely omitting the fact Cheryl has a net worth of about a million, and annual income of $250,000, wheras Cheryl spending $400 on shoes is actually proportionately LESS than you spending $160 for the latest Nikes if your annual income is $25,000

Then, you spin towards $ per land mass??? Well, what about all the unpopulated land in the U.S./U.K., how do we correct for that?

...and try not to spin away from the original point you were trying to make by redirecting. Turns out the North Korean's take the cake, HANDS DOWN, not the US, so just swallow the WRONG pill and move on!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 8 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]372619[/snapback]</div>

You promised that you would stop posting in FHOP a week ago.

 

from the Royal Navy's web site, today:

Navy 'Promotion Freeze' and Navy 'Cuts'
It has been reported that Promotion for Royal Navy officers is to be frozen in cost cutting measures. The Royal Navy is working hard to be more efficient in how we command, manage and support sailors; so that we can focus more of our resources on the front line. As a result, we have warned our people that there may a temporary reduction in a few promotion opportunities, particularly for senior officers in headquarters posts.

It has also been widely reported that the Royal Navy may suffer heavy cuts and lose a number of warships (ranging from six to half the fleet, depending on which newspaper you read) as a result of a spending review. The MOD routinely reviews all Defence capabilities to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most. This may mean increases for some areas and decreases for others. But we are some way from any decisions and the MOD currently has no plans to cut the numbers of Destroyers and Frigates.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 8 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]372600[/snapback]</div>

Yes. The older attitudes are gradually changing. This is why the Conservative (Tory) party has been out of office in the UK for about 10 years. In any case the Tories here tend to be left of both the US Republican & Democratic parties.
There seems to be a denigration in this thread of certain social policies such as the National Health Service but most people would rather live in a country which provides health care at low cost than one where people have to pay hefty sums for medical care, especially surgical procedures. Think about it. When you're 60 or 70 you might need surgery and subsequent medication running into $$thousands, or you might be lucky and keep going without serious health problems. You know that if you spend Big Money on surgery and medication it will badly hit your usual standard of living and you might even have to sell your house. An unpleasant spot to be in, between a rock & a hard place. Best avoided.

 

dbermanmd, to clarify, you're saying...

We should spend more...?

We should attack people more often...?

However you break it down, it appears that we're not even able to afford military operations such as Iraq...our individual savings rates were recently reported in negative numbers...all of these "let's spend more" arguments assume that we *have the money to spend in the first place.*

Sure, wouldn't it be great if we sent 2,000,000 more troops to Iraq...how about 20,000,000? But your theoretical arguments fall apart when we actually have to *do* something, and make it work within a budget.

And don't say something like, "well, if we don't send more troops, our country will be attacked and the American Way of Life will be compromised." This may or may not happen and just 'cause we send lots of troops doesn't prove that it would have happened if we didn't.

This is why I continue to suggest that we as a country need to tighten our belts and explore *other* courses of action that can strengthen our position and our independence.

How about if we all started saving more? That would help, don't you think?

Why are your solutions/those of our current President always so aggressive and confrontational (and always assume absolutely no contributory negligence on our part)...instead of calling upon us as Americans to make personal sacrifice for the greater good?

Because we've got lots of weapons and it's fun/easy/spectacular/testosterone enriching/supportive of our extensive military industrial complex to use them.

Humanitarian aid is just so...sensitive...more like women's work, actually.

I think that's it; killing is men's work and putting things together again is for women and sissies...and what hawk in his right mind would admit to having sensitive tendencies?

Not many, I'd guess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 08:16 AM) [snapback]372399[/snapback]</div>

All depends on how you define 'socialized'. Could it mean a country that has labour unions, Medicare, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance? Or a country that prohibits certain people from flying, because of their political views? A country that reads its citizens' mail? Hmmm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 8 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]372633[/snapback]</div>

What's your point?


:lol:



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 8 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]372642[/snapback]</div>

This is a very naive standpoint. You seem to think of money as a very black and white quantity. Let me tell you something: the Gov. can do whatever it wants with the *idea* of money, justify this that, create money, or tighten the faucet as it seems fit. The individual person with no savings has zip, zero, nada, even as a whole, impact on what the Gov. wants to do with military, or any other form of spending. The whole core of it is this: The United States Treasury has a theoretical 100% solid credit rating, and it just gets fuzzier from there...