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.

Here's an interesting way of looking at immigration. I leave it to others here to educate me on the pros or cons of the ideas outlined in the demonstration.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When you are forced to protect most of the world, no its not all that idiotic.

You are also missing that welfare, Social Security, and Health Care together make a truly obscene number.

'Protecting most of the world'? What?

NATO.

Also, examining the US military as a portion of only the Federal budget when comparing it to other military spending(which is always given as a portion of total national budget) is deceiving.

To get an accurate picture, you have to add State and Local spending in there was well like other country ratios do. That shrinks the military spending considerably.

Try us. Halve your military budget and see if we end up with sharia laws.

More like we are the reason you aren't speaking Russian and wearing fuzzy hats(or goosestepping with red armbands)

No, you wouldn't fall apart tomorrow without us. But your national security would be severely reduced.

Really the only problem with US military spending is that Congress buys unnecessary equipment our military doesn't want.

Well, the Russians are the main reason we're not wearing those snazzy armbands, but that's another argument.

But the Cold War is over Grey. Really. You can cut military spending. It won't destroy the world.

The Cold War may be over, but there are other threats. Russia and China are still major threats, and the Middle East powder keg is becoming worse.

We aren't in a period where we can afford to deescalate. And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Arguably, you harm your own people and your economy with the enormous tax spend on maintaining it.

Even if Russia and China ARE major threats, the US military is so ridiculously powerful for conventional warfare that only a complete lunatic would engage them directly EVEN IF you cut the budget by a significant amount. Even 20% would be huge.

Edit to add: And if such a lunatic existed, they would be obliterated in days by the US if they DID attack.

The problem is that the military spend for conventional warfare doesn't do anything to stop unconventional attacks, which is the main security threat currently.

There's a very good book about this called the Accidental Guerrilla which was written by a top security advisor to the pentagon on insurgent warfare. Well worth reading.

I remember in world war 2 how the nazi's and the japanese did not want to conquer the united states because it would be too hard for them to do it. It is alot of land and and trying to take it would be alot more difficult than conquering russia.

So no the united states is not under threat of foreign powers conquering the united states.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.

It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.

Again, what does that have to do with another continent?

Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Only to our selves with our decaying infrastructure. Its cool, though. Last Friday I got to see a B2 Spirit fly over my house to kick off the Rose Bowl. That makes up for our country's deplorable state of road and bridge maintenance.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I remember in world war 2 how the nazi's and the japanese did not want to conquer the united states because it would be too hard for them to do it. It is alot of land and and trying to take it would be alot more difficult than conquering russia.

So no the united states is not under threat of foreign powers conquering the united states.

We aren't under threat of foreign invasion because we have this huge military. Kinda why we would want to keep it.

If something is the reason you aren't under threat, you don't get rid of it because you aren't under threat. You don't get rid of the cause of the good effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Only to our selves with our decaying infrastructure. Its cool, though. Last Friday I got to see a B2 Spirit fly over my house to kick off the Rose Bowl. That makes up for our country's deplorable state of road and bridge maintenance.

The Federal government isn't responsible for maintaining your local and state roads.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.

Boy, this thread has wandered.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.

Russia would have a large military regardless as they are and always have been an aggressive power. If the US has a large military, Russia just claims its self-defense. If the US doesn't have a large military, Russia has a large military anyway and they get to run rampant over all their little neighbors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The ancient laws and customs of the sea compel mariners to offer aid to vessels in distress.

Do you have a cite for that in maritime law? This is not a criticism but a question.

EDIT: I'm not asking for a cite or anything, just a reference.

I was actually referring to the ancient customs by which seafarers have operated for centuries, to help each other in distress, but in fact the principle is embodied in Article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.

Italy and Greece are both signatories to the treaty and therefore bound to assist refugees floating around in the Med.

Thanks!

 Ouze wrote:
Boy, this thread has wandered.

I apologise. I may be responsible for that.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.

So, we caused the Soviets to invade Czechoslovakia in '68? Or put down the Hungarians in '56? Or divide Berlin with a wall in '61? Or to declare marshall law in Poland in '81?

I preferred it when we were talking about eau de toilette.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When you are forced to protect most of the world, no its not all that idiotic.

You are also missing that welfare, Social Security, and Health Care together make a truly obscene number.

'Protecting most of the world'? What?

Guys arguing the merits of the US budget process seems OT from a crime spree in Koln, Germany no? Can we get back to topic before Motyak loses his mind.

"They say whenever an OT thread goes off topic, Motyak sheds a single, tiny tear."

 Grey Templar wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.

Russia would have a large military regardless as they are and always have been an aggressive power. If the US has a large military, Russia just claims its self-defense. If the US doesn't have a large military, Russia has a large military anyway and they get to run rampant over all their little neighbors.

Which would be different to what is currently happening because...?

I'm not sure why the blame is on the refugees or weakened German police forces. As I posted earlier, the exact same thing has happened in the US already. We even have a term for it: Wildings.

If a bunch of German minorities started playing the Knock Out Game, would we be blaming purely European politics? It seems to me like these things happen when you have a lot of young men, possibly intoxicated, in a mob with no police presence in sight. Things escalate.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We even have a term for it: Wildings.

I have not heard of this term before.

Wildings, I remember those. We now have flash mob looting etc.

Agreed, this is a crime issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If something is the reason you aren't under threat, you don't get rid of it because you aren't under threat. You don't get rid of the cause of the good effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.

Only to our selves with our decaying infrastructure. Its cool, though. Last Friday I got to see a B2 Spirit fly over my house to kick off the Rose Bowl. That makes up for our country's deplorable state of road and bridge maintenance.

The Federal government isn't responsible for maintaining your local and state roads.

Yeah, good thing I didn't say local roads, eh?

The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has rated almost 200,000 bridges, or one of every three bridges in the U.S., as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Furthermore, more than one-fourth of all bridges are over 50 years old, the average design-life of a bridge.

https://www.nace.org/Corrosion-Central/Industries/Highways-and-Bridges/

Personally, I'd trade a few pieces of cool war gear for some maintained bridges. We have plenty of gak to kill other people, we could skim a few % off our military spending and do A LOT for the people of this country and still have plenty of money left to keep our military churning.

You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.

 Da Boss wrote:
Arguably, you harm your own people and your economy with the enormous tax spend on maintaining it.

Even if Russia and China ARE major threats, the US military is so ridiculously powerful for conventional warfare that only a complete lunatic would engage them directly EVEN IF you cut the budget by a significant amount. Even 20% would be huge.

Edit to add: And if such a lunatic existed, they would be obliterated in days by the US if they DID attack.

The problem is that the military spend for conventional warfare doesn't do anything to stop unconventional attacks, which is the main security threat currently.

There's a very good book about this called the Accidental Guerrilla which was written by a top security advisor to the pentagon on insurgent warfare. Well worth reading.

The US military makes many nation's militaries pale in comparison

Take for example the Iraq war or gulf war. The largest air force, was destroyed in little over a day by the united states.

So no we don't have to worry about foreign powers ever attacking the us.... Ever.


Police forces in general are not well equipped enough to handle large standing groups of people, even riot units take alot of time, money and planning to execute correctly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.

Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.

Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.

Nah, nothing to do with teacher salaries. It has more to do with Administrative bloat(one of the schools at my college has 3 deans for 'reasons'...), purchasing unnecessary equipment(my school just retrofitted the gym with a bunch of new exercise machines, but the desks in most classrooms are intended for elementary school kids, not adults), etc...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.

Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.

I have a personal example. When I lived in Burke County GA, the HS built a new foot ball stadium (over 250k) yet could not afford a tutoring program which they were mandated to have by state DOE because of their dismal graduation rate (at that point less than 50%). Yep it is anecdotal.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.

Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.

Nah, nothing to do with teacher salaries. It has more to do with Administrative bloat(one of the schools at my college has 3 deans for 'reasons'...), purchasing unnecessary equipment(my school just retrofitted the gym with a bunch of new exercise machines, but the desks in most classrooms are intended for elementary school kids, not adults), etc...

Ah.

Also, I realize that my statement sounded super combative, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

All cool.