Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:All our money sure is going to some great progress.

It's worth a shot.

So this is our money shot?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?

Well denying relegious freedom, basic human rights and worst of all knowledge of their true circumstances to over a billion people. That's just a start. But as I said, it's not an issue for this thread.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?

Well denying relegious freedom, basic human rights and worst of all knowledge of their true circumstances to over a billion people. That's just a start. But as I said, it's not an issue for this thread.

I asked for a scale, a relative indicator of actual oppressiveness as compared to other states and populations. Not a laundry list of what you don't like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Take it for what you will. China scores pretty low.

ChrisWWII wrote:...the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes...

You know that The Prince was almost certainly a satire, right? If you read the rest of Machiavelli's work, before and after The Prince, its pretty clear that he was a champion of the free republic.

ChrisWWII wrote:
....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability.

Egypt hasn't been stable for a very long time. Its just that there are now riots in the streets, so people pay more attention.

ChrisWWII wrote:
If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

Nah, states that have had working governments for a long period of time don't tend to get worse very often. What replaces the current regime might be less friendly to the US and Israel, but its unlikely to be worse than Mubarak from the perspective of the average Egyptian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:One key thing that you need to understand is that a big reason the US's military budget is so high is because the US is literally paying to defend way more than itself. It's the reason Europe gets away with such a low military budget per nation, and probably why Japan, South Korea, Germany and Taiwan don't have nukes. They know that the US will defend them, and the US is PAYING to defend them. That really is a very, very important reason when you start crying that the US is spending so much money on 'national defense'.

No, you're reasoning backwards. While countries like Germany spend far less of their GDP on the military, they still spend more than almost every nation in the world.

List of countries by gross military expenditures:
USA
China
UK
France
Russia
Germany
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Italy
India

Amaya wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Take it for what you will. China scores pretty low.

I wonder who is behind this study.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:...the type of view championed by Machiavelli and Hobbes...

You know that The Prince was almost certainly a satire, right? If you read the rest of Machiavelli's work, before and after The Prince, its pretty clear that he was a champion of the free republic.

Really? I haven't read any of his works, and just heard or glanced a few of his quotes. I always assumed he was a cold-hearted bastard.

ChrisWWII wrote:
....Egypt is much more important than that. It is a key US ally in the region, and one that has the beautiful resource of stability.

Egypt hasn't been stable for a very long time. Its just that there are now riots in the streets, so people pay more attention.

ChrisWWII wrote:
If the government of Egypt falls, we could see what was once a nice stable state collapse from that, and to be honest....that will just lead to probably a worse situation than the one we're in now.

Nah, states that have had working governments for a long period of time don't tend to get worse very often. What replaces the current regime might be less friendly to the US and Israel, but its unlikely to be worse than Mubarak from the perspective of the average Egyptian.

It's not like many posters here might actually care what the average Egyptian wants. In fact I'm sure a fair few still think of them as 'the enemy'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I wonder who is behind this study.

The Economist Group, via The Economist Intelligence Unit. Its a bit more precise than Freedom House, but hat also makes it more arbitrary; despite a clear, point-based method.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Really? I haven't read any of his works, and just heard or glanced a few of his quotes. I always assumed he was a cold-hearted bastard.

At the very least, he was not an advocate of a particular position, but the sort of person that extrapolated best practices from a set of conditions. Hence he published Discourses on Livy, and The Prince.

dogma wrote:You know that The Prince was almost certainly a satire, right? If you read the rest of Machiavelli's work, before and after The Prince, its pretty clearw that he was a champion of the free republic.

Oh I know full well Machiavelli was basically saying 'SCREW YOU, YOU SONS OF B***HES' when he wrote the Prince, but it doesn't make the ideas that he put down in it any less valid. Johnathan Swift was being satirical with A Modest Proposal but that doesn't make the point that using part of an overpopulated areas population to feed the other parts is not a grisly, but potentially effective method. Saying that realism was championed by the likes of Hobbes and Machiavelli is just the easisest and quickest way I could thinkin of to explain what realism is to a group of laypeople as far as the study of international relations goes. I could start talking like I was writing an essay for an IR module, but this method is a bit easier.

Egypt hasn't been stable for a very long time. Its just that there are now riots in the streets, so people pay more attention.

True, but the country had been stable enough to allow for lots of economic development in the past decade or so. Even if the average civillian is under heavy watch, I'd call a nation with a booming economy stable.

Nah, states that have had working governments for a long period of time don't tend to get worse very often. What replaces the current regime might be less friendly to the US and Israel, but its unlikely to be worse than Mubarak from the perspective of the average Egyptian.

While it's true that long functioning states tend to not get worst, I'd like to point out that mainly applies to states that have a very well defined set of rules that they live by. E.g. If the President of the US is killed, we know immediately who will take his place. However, in Egypt, if the government falls we don't know who will take charge there, and if it will at all be a peaceful transition. The multiple groups opposed to the current regime are still unified in calling for democracy, but we know that there are major factions within the movement, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a major player in the anti-government movement.

No, you're reasoning backwards. While countries like Germany spend far less of their GDP on the military, they still spend more than almost every nation in the world.

The list of nations by military expenditures doesn't really disprove my point, as I wasn't saying that they spent less than other nations, but saying that they spend less than they would be without US assistance either directly, or indirectly. If we consider both actual monetary value AND Spending as a Percent of GDP. If we look at spending as a percentage of GDP, then the top spenders in the world are:

1-Eritrea: 20.9%
2-Georgia: 8.5%
3-Saudia Arabia: 8.2%
4-Oman: 7.7%
5-Israel: 7%
6-Chad: 6.6%
7-Jordan: 5.9%
8-UAE: 5.9%
9-Iraq: 5.4%
10-Sudan: 4.4%

11-USA
36-South Korea
42-UK

As you can see, when we look instead of just raw money spent, at what percent of its economy a nation is dedicating to its military we notice a different pattern. Not as many of the nations here are US allies at all, and those nations th
at are US allies are spending far less of their economy on their military as a fair chunk of the world. And even if we change it around and look again at raw spending....

1-USA: $663,255,000,000
2-China: $98,800,000,000
3-UK: $69,271,000,000
4-France: $67,316,000,000
5-Russia: $61,000,000,000
6-Germany: $48,022,000,000
7-Japan: $46,859,000,000
8-Saudi Arabia: $39,257,000,000
9-Italy: $37,427,000,000
10-India: $36,600,000,000

Even here we see a MASSIVE gap in spending between the US and its allies. Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

ChrisWWII wrote: Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote: Once again, the obvious reason is because the US has taken alot of the burden for defending its allied nations away from those states and onto itself.

I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion.

Seconded.


We Germans do not consider the US defending us.
Nor do we imagine any other of the Europeans doing it.
The money spent on the military is cut back like many other investments today.

Then the 57,000 US Military personnell (more than the US military personell in Iraq mind you) in Germany are doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs? Just because the population of a nation doesn't consider something as true, doesn't mean the government doesn't know it. You may not see the US as defending your nation, but the government knows that the US has enough troops in Germany to fight a small war, and if Germany were ever to be atacked, the United States would indeed defend her ally. The same goes for Australia. The governments of the Western World KNOW they have the US military shield and nuclear umbrella to fall back upon. Hell, the nuclear umbrella was created for the expressed purpose of limiting nuclear proliferation by telling US allied states 'You don't need your own nukes, if you're attacked with nukes, we will use our nukes to defend you.'

I do have to ask ChrisWWII; how do you view the United States as a whole? I'd like to see a bit further back in your reasoning. It's not too often we get a British (national?) come on Dakka and defend America more forcefully than a few other American posters.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I wonder who is behind this study.

The same guys behind this:

http://www.economist.com/

....Stupid little country flag. I often forget to say that I'm not British. I'm American, and I'm going to Uni out her in Scotland, so my point of view is an American one, not a British one.

I find it very interesting how they have shut off the internet, and will continue to study the situation closely. This is a relatively new development with regards to a form of information warfare, and as someone currently compiling a dissertation on cyber-warfare, highly relevant.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Oh I know full well Machiavelli was basically saying 'SCREW YOU, YOU SONS OF B***HES' when he wrote the Prince, but it doesn't make the ideas that he put down in it any less valid.

Maybe not, but it does require extra justification; which is why you get Hobbes, Morgenthau, and Waltz. All wrong, of course; there isn't very much anarchy anywhere, let alone in the international system.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Johnathan Swift was being satirical with A Modest Proposal but that doesn't make the point that using part of an overpopulated areas population to feed the other parts is not a grisly, but potentially effective method.

That wasn't his point at all. In fact, that's the opposite of his point. Swift was a populist.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Saying that realism was championed by the likes of Hobbes and Machiavelli is just the easisest and quickest way I could thinkin of to explain what realism is to a group of laypeople as far as the study of international relations goes.

Thing is, neither of those guys had anything to do with international relations. The closest is Machiavelli, and he spoke of states, not nations. You want to look at Morgenthau, Waltz, and maybe Riker.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I could start talking like I was writing an essay for an IR module, but this method is a bit easier.

Funny thing is that I'm working at my PhD in IR/Poli Sci.

ChrisWWII wrote:
True, but the country had been stable enough to allow for lots of economic development in the past decade or so. Even if the average civillian is under heavy watch, I'd call a nation with a booming economy stable.

So, since Afghanistan has ~twice the GDP growth rate of Egypt are they ~twice as stable?

ChrisWWII wrote:
While it's true that long functioning states tend to not get worst, I'd like to point out that mainly applies to states that have a very well defined set of rules that they live by. E.g. If the President of the US is killed, we know immediately who will take his place.

No, that's not true at all. Mexico is a great example, so are most Caribbean states.

ChrisWWII wrote:
However, in Egypt, if the government falls we don't know who will take charge there, and if it will at all be a peaceful transition.

No one ever knows who will take charge, we just guess, even in the US.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Your last point.

You're begging the question. There is a massive gap between the US, and its allies, but it has nothing to do with collective defense. Note that all major Western European allies of the US have among the highest gross defense expenditures.

That's alright though, I'm sure that Georgia, with its 8.5% GDP military budget is a huge threat.

ChrisWWII wrote:Then the 57,000 US Military personnell (more than the US military personell in Iraq mind you) in Germany are doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs?

What else should they do?
Oppress the natives?

Yes, there was a reason to be at a certain border.
Now, its just a junction, a recreation area, a hospital. Just wait until these bases are moved.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Just because the population of a nation doesn't consider something as true, doesn't mean the government doesn't know it. You may not see the US as defending your nation, but the government knows that the US has enough troops in Germany to fight a small war, and if Germany were ever to be attacked, the United States would indeed defend her ally.

The Government is interested in a european security policy that may or may not include America.
Actually, the defense of our own territory is irrelevant as the "war on terror" needs to be adressed and the military is transformed into a malfunctioning mess.
Your point on 6-Germany: $48,022,000,000 is fine, until you see what we get for these funds.

The US will surely defend its interests. Those do not have to be identical with those of the locals.
A "tactical withdrawal" and nuking the advancing opponent isn't unlikely....

ChrisWWII wrote:'You don't need your own nukes, if you're attacked with nukes, we will use our nukes to defend you.'

Some nations are not willing to have nukes at all.
Maybe the offer made the decision easier, but I doubt many europeans believe in WMD as a solution.
Except la France and Britannia... who keep their own.

Let us not forget South Africa, that gave their domestically developed weapons up.

dogma wrote:
Maybe not, but it does require extra justification; which is why you get Hobbes, Morgenthau, and Waltz. All wrong, of course; there isn't very much anarchy anywhere, let alone in the international system.

Oh joy...I think we're on exact opposite ends of the as far as things go with IR. I personally style myself as a Hobbes Was Right realist. Human beings by nature will be in constant warfare, and it is only through the Leviathan that order can be maintained, and human life can move away from being nasty, brutish and short. I personally take this view and apply it to the international sphere as each 'state' acting like an individual human being, and will try to get its own interests at the expense of others. Out of curiosity, where do you stand?

That wasn't his point at all. In fact, that's the opposite of his point. Swift was a populist.

His satire was saying that the solution to the problem was to use the excess population to feed other. I am of the opinino that even the author's interpretation is no better than any one else's interpreation, e.g. you can read Fareheit 451 as a story about censorship, even though Bradbury said it was about television. I know Swift wasn't championin what he said in that document, but it is possible to look at it in a non satirical weapon.

Thing is, neither of those guys had anything to do with international relations. The closest is Machiavelli, and he spoke of states, not nations. You want to look at Morgenthau, Waltz, and maybe Riker.

Hobbes did say that without a form of top-down authority, humanity would fall back to it's natural condition of constant warfare. I almost look at international relations as human interaction, only each nation is acting as one human, if that makes sense.... But as far as Machiavelli goes, he does talk about states, and in its most basic form is not international relations relations between states?

I have looked at Morgenthau, and I personally am finding him very interesting...the others are on my future 'to read list' at this point.

Funny thing is that I'm working at my PhD in IR/Poli Sci.

Awesome. That's where I'm hoping to find myself one of these days...but still, it's my intersemester break. I do not want to be writing like it's termtime when I've still got a week of R&R left to go.

So, since Afghanistan has ~twice the GDP growth rate of Egypt are they ~twice as stable?

Not at all, I never said that GDP growth and stability are porportional, just that increased GDP growth is a sign of increased stability. Afghanistan is not a very stable state, but its continual economic increases are signs of growing stability.

No, that's not true at all. Mexico is a great example, so are most Caribbean states.

You got me there, so maybe it's not a 100% accurate rule, but I still doubt that Egypt will maintain it's stability if the government that's ruled tha nation fairly effectively for over 20 years is toppled overnight.

No one ever knows who will take charge, we just guess, even in the US.

Not true, the United States has a well defined chain of succession. If the President dies, the Vice President becomes President. Then if he dies before appointing a Vice President, the Speaker of the House becomes President, etc. etc.

You're begging the question. There is a massive gap between the US, and its allies, but it has nothing to do with collective defense. Note that all major Western European allies of the US have among the highest gross defense expenditures.

That's alright though, I'm sure that Georgia, with its 8.5% GDP military budget is a huge threat.

They do hvae the highest gross defense expenditures, but that's simply because they have such massive economies already that 1% of their economies is better than most others. But you will note that most nations seem to have a higher percentage of their budget devoted to military expenditures than many of America's allies, and America's allies KNOW that the United States will come to their aid if it's needed. America's allies know they can get away with spending less on military efforts than they would normally have to, and act accordingly. Why spend more of your own money defending yourself if you can get someone else to do it for you?

1hadhq wrote:
What else should they do?
Oppress the natives?

Yes, there was a reason to be at a certain border.
Now, its just a junction, a recreation area, a hospital. Just wait until these bases are moved.

Unfortunately, they're not just an R&R point. Rammstein AFB is one of the most key American aerial hubs in Europe. The American forces in Germany are offiically there for defensive purposes. And if it gets to the point where we're using tac nukes on friendly soil, I think the last thing we need to worry about is whether or not American interest align with the interests of the locals.

Some nations are not willing to have nukes at all.
Maybe the offer made the decision easier, but I doubt many europeans believe in WMD as a solution.
Except la France and Britannia... who keep their own.

And a great argument for why other nations don't need to spend money on nukes is that 'hey, the US will defend us with its nukes, so why spend our money developing something we alreayd get for free?'

ChrisWWII wrote:
And a great argument for why other nations don't need to spend money on nukes is that 'hey, the US will defend us with its nukes, so why spend our money developing something we already get for free?'

Youre requesting everyone to have his own nukes?
The Netherlands, Belguim, Spain, etc?

Maybe one should consider what his country got for "free" in terms of tech. Before criticising the investment beeing too onesided.
Is START and START II not a good thing? Thought we need less nukes....whats left should be enough to devastate the whole planet.




Isn't it obvious the north of africa could see a time when Dictators held in place by US or SU support will fall?
Keep watching the rise of China.
Its no longer so easy to split the world into 2 spheres of influence.

Oh hell, I am one of thos who thinks nukes create stability. If everyone had nukes, no one would want to fight any wars simply because if they start a war then EVERYBODY dies. So yes, I don't think mor enukes is a good thing, I think nuclear proliferation into the hands of rational governments is a good thing.

..Then again, I'm not 100% sure I'm getting wherre you're coming from. I never hinted before this that everyone should have nukes, nore that START and START II were not good.... and I don't get what your 2nd paragraph is saying at all, or the relevance it has to this discussion. Yeah the world is multipolar now, but how does that fit in with anything we were talking about?

efarrer wrote:

olympia wrote:Rather than support a SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY movement in Egypt, the U.S. continues to back the dynastic regime of Mubarak. In short, the U.S. talks alot of gak about supporting democracy but when the rubber hits the road that's all it is.

It's only secular if you aren't paying any attention to the key players in Egypt. Much like with the Shah in Iran, there is a very hardcore group of fanatics in Egypt and if you don't think they're forming the core of these "pro-democracy" riots, well, you got another thing coming.

That's not what the BBC are saying. Their reporter says it's larger disaffected middle classes rioting ATM and the Muslim Brotherhood is staying out of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Take it for what you will. China scores pretty low.

That's just a buncha crap put up by bleeding heart liberals.

Back on topic, will stability in Egypt be assured by supporting an 86-year old for president?

ChrisWWII wrote:
Oh joy...I think we're on exact opposite ends of the as far as things go with IR. I personally style myself as a Hobbes Was Right realist. Human beings by nature will be in constant warfare, and it is only through the Leviathan that order can be maintained, and human life can move away from being nasty, brutish and short. I personally take this view and apply it to the international sphere as each 'state' acting like an individual human being, and will try to get its own interests at the expense of others. Out of curiosity, where do you stand?

Nowhere, I just point out when other people have views that aren't coherent.

Though I do think that realism is generally more incoherent than any other view of international politics. That whole assumption of anarchy is really very poor in a system where state behavior is governed by individual choice, and national preference.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Hobbes did say that without a form of top-down authority, humanity would fall back to it's natural condition of constant warfare.

The problem is that we have no proof establishing that as the natural condition, and its a particularly weak point given that, in Hobbes' time, authority did nothing to prevent constant warfare.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I almost look at international relations as human interaction, only each nation is acting as one human, if that makes sense.... But as far as Machiavelli goes, he does talk about states, and in its most basic form is not international relations relations between states?

Machiavelli talks about city-states, not nation-states. And no, international relations doesn't necessarily have anything to do with states, we only talk about it because the state is the most common political unit today.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Not at all, I never said that GDP growth and stability are porportional, just that increased GDP growth is a sign of increased stability. Afghanistan is not a very stable state, but its continual economic increases are signs of growing stability.

I think you're confusing stability with prosperity. North Korea has an awful projected growth rate, and yet its one of the most stable states in the world.

ChrisWWII wrote:
You got me there, so maybe it's not a 100% accurate rule, but I still doubt that Egypt will maintain it's stability if the government that's ruled tha nation fairly effectively for over 20 years is toppled overnight.

You're still operating under assumption that Egypt was stable before these riots, it wasn't. Really, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "stable", nor am I sure that you know what you mean when you say "stable".

In my mind a stable state is one that is not in imminent danger of being replaced by informal action. Meaning that Egypt hasn't been stable for a long time, but Mexico has been.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Not true, the United States has a well defined chain of succession. If the President dies, the Vice President becomes President. Then if he dies before appointing a Vice President, the Speaker of the House becomes President, etc. etc.

No, you're talking about what the law is, not whether or not people will follow the law. We can know the first thing, but not the second.

ChrisWWII wrote:
They do hvae the highest gross defense expenditures, but that's simply because they have such massive economies already that 1% of their economies is better than most others. But you will note that most nations seem to have a higher percentage of their budget devoted to military expenditures than many of America's allies, and America's allies KNOW that the United States will come to their aid if it's needed. America's allies know they can get away with spending less on military efforts than they would normally have to, and act accordingly. Why spend more of your own money defending yourself if you can get someone else to do it for you?

You're argument hinges on the idea that the percentage of GDP expended on the military is indicative of that military's quality, and that's a nonsense idea. The German military is not significantly worse than the Georgian one because Georgia spends 8 times as much of their GDP on their armed forces. In fact, the opposite is true.

Again, if the United States spent less on the military, I can virtually guarantee you that Germany would not spend more. This whole idea that America is somehow holding back the barbarians is a total myth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:Oh hell, I am one of thos who thinks nukes create stability. If everyone had nukes, no one would want to fight any wars simply because if they start a war then EVERYBODY dies.

It hasn't stopped India and Pakistan from fighting constant border skirmishes. The absence of total war does not indicate stability.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:This is a whole different subject but that view would explain the quotation marks if they were intended. I wont get into it and derail this thread, but I will say I disagree with your views. The chinese government is one of the most oppressive on earth.

On what scale?

Well denying relegious freedom, basic human rights and worst of all knowledge of their true circumstances to over a billion people. That's just a start. But as I said, it's not an issue for this thread.

I asked for a scale, a relative indicator of actual oppressiveness as compared to other states and populations. Not a laundry list of what you don't like.

Oh ok. Sorry. If countries were people. And oppressiveness was douchebaggery. China would be about the same level as the dakkadakka.com user ShumaGorath.

I'm surprised at you whatwhat. That went beyond petty.

Just speaking to him on his own level. Tis all.

Actually no, you dragged this thread down a bit. He was asking you to compare China to another country (such as the US) and see how it matched up, rather than just listing things that China has failed at (and I could argue that the US also fails).

No he asked an un welcome question after I had said i ddin't want to derail the thread with the subject several times. Then sniped at me when I didn't answer him how he wanted. boo hoo. Go give him a pat on the back about it.

whatwhat wrote:No he asked an un welcome question after I had said i ddin't want to derail the thread with the subject several times. Then sniped at me when I didn't answer him how he wanted. boo hoo. Go give him a pat on the back about it.

I'm pretty sure that you find all questions unwelcome.

Either way, if he sniped at you, maybe you should have ignored it.

I don't understand why asking about China is an unwelcome question, but I really don't care either. You go be snippy and score cheap points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd.