Another way to look at cost of US military

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But how and what do you cut?

Decrease the fighting force - unemployment.

Close bases? Then Rapid City will loose a lot as will many other small cities near military bases.

Decrease the production of the fighters/bombers - government bailout for Lockheed?

Decrease the production of small arms? what about Remington, Colt? And what about now not having supplies for the forces currently fighting?

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i agree we are spending to much money on things here in Iraq but not from what you think. We spen millions a week on things like KBR, TCN's andshit we dont need. KBR does all our electrical work and we have had over 100 soldiers killed in showers due to faulty electrical.

Not to menetion paying some firefighter 90-150k per year to sit around and do practicly nothing. Oh im sorry they had 1 fire so far the rest of the time they tell us we cant have privacy curtains in our rooms.

We can save billions just by letting the military take care of ourselves, let our cooks cook, our firefighters fight fires, so on and so forth. We wast to much bringing contractors to do our work for us.

Now ideas like THAT is what we need to pass on to government cuts.

- not the drama cries from those that just want to yell "Fuck Boeing."

It *is* a good idea, but the military doesn't HAVE enough cooks/firefights anymore for that stuff - that's WHY the contractors are hired.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No. It's backwards. We need deterrence, then we spend the amounts neccesary. How much is given is how much we can build.

What do you mean we need deterrence? We need to be deterred? Look, the claim made by others is that spending lots on the military creates a deterrence that tworks, I disagree. Make your point , I don't get what you're saying here.

Quote

Hope you are not using the news for this info. In the beginning, there was too much activity to report. Now, they can report practicall all activities. from the viewers perspective, it looks like it hasn't changed because the amount reported is still the same. Activities have died down a lot.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-07/2009-07-31-voa52.cfm?CFID=291692322&CFTOKEN=50544205&jsessionid=8830fc312348c2bf523b1734495b7d5f414d

July Worst US Month in Afghanistan, Best in Iraq

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/09/09/In_worst_day_in_months_bombs_kill_four_US_soldiers_in_Iraq/

In worst day in months, bombs kill four U.S. soldiers in Iraq


Yea, things are looking up.

Quote

See last paragraph.

I reitterate: See, in science you conduct an experiment and make observations, the observations I've seen illustrate that these organizations are not deterred by the massive military spending the US does.

My observations is that the insurgents are not responding to this so-called deterrence, what do you think based upon some of the worst kiiling in the war?

[champu 1]

Quote

... cutting contracts for killing machines.

As morbid as they are to defend, these are actually some of the things I was talking about in my post immediately preceding this one of yours. I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on more MQ-9s and RQ-4s than more C-17s and F-22s.

Also, there's a collection of articles in this document that talk about strategic culture, state actors, and addressing non-state actors and their culture. It's a long document and I'm not going to make an asinine claim (like those often accompanying links to the zeitgeist movies) that you have no business commenting on it unless you've read the whole thing, I'm just throwing it out there for reference.

In the meantime, remember that while deterrence isn't likely to work against a single suicide bomber, our goal isn't, and shouldn't be, to simply stop the next bomber.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

As morbid as they are to defend, these are actually some of the things I was talking about in my post immediately preceding this one of yours. I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on more MQ-9s and RQ-4s than more C-17s and F-22s.

Than what, social svs? I'd like to see the military steamlined, eliminate duplicity and just cut it in half so we can reduce our spending to 4 times that of #2, China.

Quote

In the meantime, remember that while deterrence isn't likely to work against a single suicide bomber, our goal isn't, and shouldn't be, to simply stop the next bomber.

Deterrence only works against people, organizations or countries that consider consequence. N. Korea, Iran and the insurgents for starters don't really care about that, so they cannot be deterred. Just as a serial killer cannot be deterred, either they think they will never get caught or they don't care if they do. Sound like some Muslim extremist groups? The N Koreans back in teh 50's didn't back down, the Viet Cong didn't back down, AQ tried twice before they took down teh WTC, this deterrence is a joke. Why is it that Sweeden doesn't have to build a massive military? THEY DON'T FUCK WITH PEOPLE, so non-proliferation of war is their deterrence. Non-motivation replaces deterrence.

[nanook 1]

Quote

What do you mean we need deterrence? We need to be deterred? Look, the claim made by others is that spending lots on the military creates a deterrence that tworks, I disagree. Make your point , I don't get what you're saying here.

I agree with what you quote others had said, but in a more correct statement: lots of spending enables better deterrence. It's not the "more money", it's the more process. That costs the money.

Deterrence is the act of denying an opponent the ability to make a tactical or strategic decision without considering a great tactical or strategic loss of position, assets, face or goals when implementing said decision.

To make it easy, let's use Safety as an example. In the skydiving community, we have an ST&A at every dropzone to have a strategic decision on all things safe regarding skydiving. But it doesn't stop there. You also have a community of responsibility ingrained in the sport to watch out for one another in unsafe actions. So safety (deterrence) exists in all levels within the sport, just like in the military. Safety doesn't work all the time. People still die. But I promise you that the belief in the community of practice regarding safety and strategic leadership by the ST&A prevents more deaths. Deterrence is any Country's given safety.

I believe you think that deterrence is not a requirement due to the fact that most countries in general, want to be left to do thier own things and will leave us alone if we do. This is not a true statement at all. This is a product of homogenous thinking that comes from a single line of thought that doesn't account for the fact that every culture is so different in wants, needs, desires, requirements and fears that it creates a turbulent and highly unpredictable ability to guess what the other's reactions mean or represent. Socialistic ideas may exist inter-country, but outside, country to country, there are no friends; just "political interests". Talk is not cheap in some countries. Breaking points are different per country. History has shown that people do not get along. Even allies go after each other from time to time. Deterrence is money well spent because it causes more diplomatic meetings, more resizing of an opponent, maybe more importantly, less hasty decisions.

With your terrorists, deterrence takes a different form altogether. It's more denial and tactical in nature. It is also dependent on how much process, training, and equipment is needed to be effective; which is positively correlated to the amount of money needed. We have been fighting terrorism significantly throughout most of the Seventies and Eighties with some cash. The eighties was called the "violent peace". Remember that time? Things changed with 9/11. There's more money and more capability now.

Quote

July Worst US Month in Afghanistan, Best in Iraq

Exactly, in Afghanistan. Not USA, Not Indonesia, Not Spain, less plots discovered in developed countries. No other attacks except against military troops in a warzone. How many terrorist avoiding civilians in the US were killed by terrorists in the last several years?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You fail to fathom the various states of deterrence, I'm sure you would find what would deter AQ abhorrent.

People always think that AQ has nothing to lose or fear but that is actually false.

So no comment on the RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL processes I posted? I guess avoidance is the soup dejour? RAM has zero relevance with non-governmental organizations. And RAM infers rational processes in the part of leaders of nations; do we have that here?

RAM was an errant theory to post, it's as reliable as deterrence theory.

All AQ fears is not being able to attack others, they blow themselves up for their cause, they fear nothing. They live to die in Jihad. That's like saying a Japanese Zero pilot, camikazee is affraid to die.

You are once again failing to realize what they fear, think about it.

They fear not being able to die for Alah in Jihad, the highest honor that can realized by these insurgents.

If you want to play tug the sausage, enjoy, but if you have a point to make I'd appreciate that.

You are inferring a PA.

If you cannot think clearly it is only your own fault.

You keep quoting only one idea of what they fear, that shows us a closed mind that is unwilling to come up with another answer that is even more valid.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We have been fighting terrorism significantly throughout most of the Seventies and Eighties with some cash.

How, exactly, was our support of mujahideen during the late 70's thru the early 90's "fighting terrorism?" We called terrorists freedom fighters and enabled such groups with funding.

Quote

Exactly, in Afghanistan. Not USA, Not Indonesia, Not Spain, less plots discovered in developed countries. No other attacks except against military troops in a warzone.

That is indicative of strategy being implemented successfully by our enemies. We allowed ourselves to be drawn into Afghanistan, just as the USSR had been ~20 years earlier.

What do you suppose was the symbolic significance of the WTC attacks?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I agree with what you quote others had said, but in a more correct statement: lots of spending enables better deterrence. It's not the "more money", it's the more process. That costs the money.

Deterrence is the act of denying an opponent the ability to make a tactical or strategic decision without considering a great tactical or strategic loss of position, assets, face or goals when implementing said decision.

We can dissect this SOB down to nothing. Eventually we have to MAKE OBSERVATIONS. I don't totally agree with your interpretation of deterrence, but would rather not get lost in that, I want to establish if, after all of our expenditures, this concept off deterrence has been realized. Clearly after the attacks here and the resistance there and killing of our troops and civilians there, deterrence is not working. There is no end in sight even after Russia being there for 10+ years and us for 8. In order to brag and claim deterrence, you have to show some measureable improvement by virtue of our spending. All I see is constant resistance and in some areas escallation of resistance.

Quote

Exactly, in Afghanistan. Not USA, Not Indonesia, Not Spain, less plots discovered in developed countries. No other attacks except against military troops in a warzone. How many terrorist avoiding civilians in the US were killed by terrorists in the last several years?

This is convoluted. As for plots discovered in developed countries, that's an example of improved intellegence, not deterrence.

As for less/no terrorist acts in the USA, taht's because we now deliver. Insead of coming here to kill in the WTC we deliver our victims as military soldiers; they've killed 4300+ since 911.

IN ORDER TO BRAG THE POWER OF DETERRENCE, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE REDUCTION/ELIMINATION OF KILLINGS/PROPERTY LOSS. All you do is talk about the deaths and loss in Iraq, that isn't an evidence of deterrence, those are examples of the failures of deterrence. Killing US military memebrs there is still killing US citizens, you can distinguish them differently, I don't. In fact, they are some of the finest Americans, so their loss could be measured in a higher light than those killed during 911.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No, that would be an example of a person who's principles are situational; though it could easily represent a simple majority of the population.

That simple majority has just become the vast majority; watch the last 2 elections? We'll have to wait and see, but people embrace the idea of HC and it could be a forever deal-maker with any politician.

Quote

You are inferring a PA.

Your response was: You are once again failing to realize what they fear, think about it.

By me saying you are playing tug the sausage, I'm not inferring you are grabbing a penis, it's a figure of speech claiming that you are engaging in a debate using meaningless protocol. You know that, quit sensationalizing.

Quote

If you cannot think clearly it is only your own fault.

You keep quoting only one idea of what they fear, that shows us a closed mind that is unwilling to come up with another answer that is even more valid.

Instead of veiling your insults at how you think I'm stupid, I would rather you constructively pick apart my post:

Rational actor model
The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximization. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes:

Goal setting and ranking.
Consideration of options.
Assessment of consequences.
Value-maximization.

The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident."


Yea, so Al Qaeda falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definitely cannot.


Now show your brilliance and address ALL of that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

That is indicative of strategy being implemented successfully by our enemies. We allowed ourselves to be drawn into Afghanistan, just as the USSR had been ~20 years earlier.

Look at the constant continuum of terroristic acts from the ME; Munich Olypics, 911, etc, etc, etc.... and the conservative machine talking up deterrence theory. There has been so much bloodshed with no letting up in sight from the terrorisst, yet the ridiculous clammering of deterrence theory continues. Laughable. I guess they're waiting for a 2000-year sample size before they make a conclusion.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case.

Ugh … I’m guessing that’s sarcasm, yes? Apparently, I failed to communicate well in my haste. That wasn’t supposed to be “name-dropping.” Rather the intent was to add some context and factual information to illustrate that the rational actor model is not the only idea underlying deterrence today. The prominence of the rational actor model declined toward the end of the Cold War, particularly when it failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union.

The point that I think you’re missing is that deterrence is not dependent on rational actor model, for all of the reasons I cited (aka what you called “name-dropping”). It’s something of a straw man to try to assert that I (& others) am using the rational actor model. I’m not asserting the rational actor model, that’s the point.


On one hand, deterrence is sometimes hard to prove because you’re proving a negative, i.e., proving the cause of something that didn’t happen. In some cases it’s also hard to prove that deterrence didn’t cause those non-events for the same reason. “Hard” does not equal impossible.

On the other hand, one can proven deterrence worked in cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated or have ended. Terrorist groups have been successfully deterred. Two examples of Islamist-affiliated terrorist groups that have been deterred include the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the other MILF) and the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines. Not only have such groups been deterred from cooperating with al Qa’eda, they have even be coerced and incentivized into providing local intelligence on operatives linked to Al Qa’eda.

What is also true is that less than 7% of terrorist between 1950 & 2007 were defeated by direct military action. Deterrence does not entail direct military action. The two means by which the majority of terrorist groups have been defeated or ended are (1) “they were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies” (40%), or (2) political absorption into government (43%), which includes causative incentivization by deterrence. (And btw: zero, none, nada, zilch, null, not a single one, was defeated via torture.)

Quote

The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident."[/url]

This quote (source here) basically restates one facet of what I cited in the portion you referred to as “name-dropping.”

If you’re arguing that deterrence requires a rational actor model, a number of folks (including myself) disagree with you. The rational actor model is not purely dependent on characteristics or behavior of state leaders (that’s a different model) but Westphalian states weighing external threats.

If you’re argument is predicated on a rational actor model, then yes by definition, it has limited application to non-state actors. It’s called the ‘return address problem.’ One doesn’t have to rely on rational actor model, however. It's something akin to arguing that the only parachute one can jump is a T-10. While that might have been the predominant parachute at one time, even the military has moved on.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

If you claim these findings of explosive devices, etc, you then certainly discount the idea of deterrence. I mean, if deterrence worked then there would be no illegal acts, right?

For 200+ years, this country has had to defend itself from foreign and sometimes domestic agression. Overall, we have done well. Sure, we have had our upsets like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but nothing on the scale of the rest of the world. There is no safer place in the world to live. Terrorism may never go away. No matter what we do, someone in the world will hate us. It might be over religion, economics, or someting out of our historical past. That is why deterrence will never go away, and it can change daily. It might be strategic concerning the Russians, Chinese, or rogue nations, or it might be domestic terrorism, but deterrence will not go away. The world will always have the Adolph Hitlers, Stalins, Maos,etc.,(hopefully on a smaller scale), and we will be viewed as public enemy number 1. We have a lot of financial housekeeping to get in order, and it may require a complete change in government. Unfortunately, the previous administrations so disappointed the American public, voters were willing to accept any change. Sadily, this is what we got, and we should not be surprised at the radical socialists coming out of the woodwork. They hope to inflict the most damage they can in the shortest time, because they know the American people are starting to wake. If the Washington protest had occurred under either Bush administration, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

How do you measure that?

I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nanook 1]

Quote

I don't totally agree with your interpretation of deterrence,

This is not interpretation, this is what deterrence is. We are not talking about Cold War deterrence and nuclear threat. That's something else entirely and is nothing I ever referenced here.

Quote

I want to establish if, after all of our expenditures, this concept off deterrence has been realized..

Yes it has.

Quote

As for plots discovered in developed countries, that's an example of improved intellegence, not deterrence.

Intelligence is a part of deterrence. It can't work without it.

Quote

All you do is talk about the deaths and loss in Iraq, that isn't an evidence of deterrence, those are examples of the failures of deterrence. Killing US military memebrs there is still killing US citizens, you can distinguish them differently, I don't. In fact, they are some of the finest Americans, so their loss could be measured in a higher light than those killed during 911

Deterrence is the protection of U.S. citizens and our country. I distinguish civilians and military because one protects the other. Sorry. That's how it is. You can't group them together just to try to get an upper hand of a debate you don't comprehend.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/463793/top_5_safest_countries_in_the_world.html

The US didn't make the top 5. I saw other lists that didn't seem real reliable, so I didn't post, but the US was no where on them.

Quote

Terrorism may never go away.

It never will, so the best policy is to remove motive from terrorists to target you.

Quote

No matter what we do, someone in the world will hate us. It might be over religion, economics, or someting out of our historical past.

Or, I dunno, could bethat we stick our big noses in their business per se.

Quote

That is why deterrence will never go away, and it can change daily. It might be strategic concerning the Russians, Chinese, or rogue nations, or it might be domestic terrorism, but deterrence will not go away.

The concept will never go away, the actual good this concept does is unproven by the continual attacks on us.

Quote

The world will always have the Adolph Hitlers, Stalins, Bush's, Maos,etc.,(hopefully on a smaller scale), and we will be viewed as public enemy number 1.

Fixed it for ya. Which is why we're in it.

Quote

Unfortunately, the previous administrations so disappointed the American public, voters were willing to accept any change.

I know, and that Clinton guy, the nerve to eliminate the deficit and cut the debt increase to virtually 0. So when you say previous admins, you must mean Reagan and GWB.

Quote

Sadily, this is what we got, and we should not be surprised at the radical socialists coming out of the woodwork.

Yea, the other Socialist, Clinton, had the never to cut spending and raise taxes so I guess we want a revitalization of that and a departure from noe-con economics that got us hre.

Quote

They hope to inflict the most damage they can in the shortest time, because they know the American people are starting to wake.

They've already awoken, did you miss the last 2 elections?

Quote

If the Washington protest had occurred under either Bush administration, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

Right, the problem is that these protestors are people who voted for Bush.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

How do you measure that?

I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others.

/Marg

Where I live, the most dangerous thing is hitting a deer or runing into a mountain lion or grizzly on a trail. There is virtually no crime, and some people leave doors unlocked. However, I realize this is a special place, and I'm afraid I did not include domestic crime (healthcare another issue) if that is what you are fishing for? (Not trying to dodge the issue, but I gotta go).

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

How do you measure that?

I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others.

/Marg

Where I live, the most dangerous thing is hitting a deer or runing into a mountain lion or grizzly on a trail. There is virtually no crime, and some people leave doors unlocked. However, I realize this is a special place, and I'm afraid I did not include domestic crime (healthcare another issue) if that is what you are fishing for? (Not trying to dodge the issue, but I gotta go).

So you agree that your assertion that the US was the safest place is errant?

[champu 1]

Quote

Than what, social svs?

As I've said, a thorough re-evaluation of priorities and a staged reduction has the promise to trim the fat out of the military budget (it happens that the former two aircraft I mentioned cost a lot less than the latter two.) Don't undo that benefit by earmarking every dollar saved for a social program.

When you play teatherball there are no winners because you're playing teatherball.

Quote

Quote

In the meantime, remember that while deterrence isn't likely to work against a single suicide bomber, our goal isn't, and shouldn't be, to simply stop the next bomber.

Deterrence only works against people, organizations or countries that consider consequence. N. Korea, Iran and the insurgents for starters don't really care about that, so they cannot be deterred. Just as a serial killer cannot be deterred, either they think they will never get caught or they don't care if they do. Sound like some Muslim extremist groups? The N Koreans back in teh 50's didn't back down, the Viet Cong didn't back down, AQ tried twice before they took down teh WTC, this deterrence is a joke.

First off... throw away the idea that I'm arguing that AQ is afraid of our carrier battle groups or our fifth generation fighters, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you painting the picture of deterrence against non-state actors as an impossible one.

Quote

Why is it that Sweeden doesn't have to build a massive military? THEY DON'T FUCK WITH PEOPLE, so non-proliferation of war is their deterrence. Non-motivation replaces deterrence.

Sweden has troops in the ISAF, which I doubt AQ distinguishes from OEF. Also, it's funny you happened to pick Sweden as they have found other ways to "fuck with people and proliferate war".

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

If you claim these findings of explosive devices, etc, you then certainly discount the idea of deterrence. I mean, if deterrence worked then there would be no illegal acts, right?

For 200+ years, this country has had to defend itself from foreign and sometimes domestic agression. Overall, we have done well. Sure, we have had our upsets like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but nothing on the scale of the rest of the world. There is no safer place in the world to live.

That has more to do with having a huge ocean on each side than on anything else. Even a mere 22 miles of water was enough to keep Napoleon and Hitler out of England.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

How do you measure that?

I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others.

Where I live, the most dangerous thing is hitting a deer or runing into a mountain lion or grizzly on a trail. There is virtually no crime, and some people leave doors unlocked. However, I realize this is a special place, and I'm afraid I did not include domestic crime (healthcare another issue) if that is what you are fishing for? (Not trying to dodge the issue, but I gotta go).

I'm not fishing for anything. Really. I'm curious as to the basis/process by which you made a pretty strong statement. How do you measure safest? If you determine it anecdotally, that is a way. Some might disagree or dispute it, but it is an honest answer.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

By what metric do you measure success?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect.

If you claim these findings of explosive devices, etc, you then certainly discount the idea of deterrence. I mean, if deterrence worked then there would be no illegal acts, right?

For 200+ years, this country has had to defend itself from foreign and sometimes domestic agression. Overall, we have done well. Sure, we have had our upsets like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but nothing on the scale of the rest of the world. There is no safer place in the world to live.

That has more to do with having a huge ocean on each side than on anything else. Even a mere 22 miles of water was enough to keep Napoleon and Hitler out of England.

I agree; just remember it was the Royal Air Force that stopped Hitler from sailing to England.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

How do you measure that?

I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others.

Where I live, the most dangerous thing is hitting a deer or runing into a mountain lion or grizzly on a trail. There is virtually no crime, and some people leave doors unlocked. However, I realize this is a special place, and I'm afraid I did not include domestic crime (healthcare another issue) if that is what you are fishing for? (Not trying to dodge the issue, but I gotta go).

I'm not fishing for anything. Really. I'm curious as to the basis/process by which you made a pretty strong statement. How do you measure safest? If you determine it anecdotally, that is a way. Some might disagree or dispute it, but it is an honest answer.

/Marg

In terms of pollution, political unrest, travel restrictions, emergency services, instances of police brutality, I would say overall this is the safest place to live for our size and population. Freedom of movement allows Americans to pursue work anywhere, or live anywhere. Our right to protest and pressure our elected officials are an added bonus.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Our right to protest and pressure our elected officials are an added bonus.

even if it is racist to do so

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Our right to protest and pressure our elected officials are an added bonus.

even if it is racist to do so

even if he is of color, its worse. still, the best country in the battalion.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Lucky... 0]

WHAT, NO RESPONSE?

Quote

There is no safer place in the world to live.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/...es_in_the_world.html

The US didn't make the top 5. I saw other lists that didn't seem real reliable, so I didn't post, but the US was no where on them.

Quote

Terrorism may never go away.

It never will, so the best policy is to remove motive from terrorists to target you.

Quote

No matter what we do, someone in the world will hate us. It might be over religion, economics, or someting out of our historical past.

Or, I dunno, could bethat we stick our big noses in their business per se.

Quote

That is why deterrence will never go away, and it can change daily. It might be strategic concerning the Russians, Chinese, or rogue nations, or it might be domestic terrorism, but deterrence will not go away.

The concept will never go away, the actual good this concept does is unproven by the continual attacks on us.

Quote

The world will always have the Adolph Hitlers, Stalins, Bush's, Maos,etc.,(hopefully on a smaller scale), and we will be viewed as public enemy number 1.

Fixed it for ya. Which is why we're in it.

Quote

Unfortunately, the previous administrations so disappointed the American public, voters were willing to accept any change.

I know, and that Clinton guy, the nerve to eliminate the deficit and cut the debt increase to virtually 0. So when you say previous admins, you must mean Reagan and GWB.

Quote

Sadily, this is what we got, and we should not be surprised at the radical socialists coming out of the woodwork.

Yea, the other Socialist, Clinton, had the never to cut spending and raise taxes so I guess we want a revitalization of that and a departure from noe-con economics that got us hre.

Quote

They hope to inflict the most damage they can in the shortest time, because they know the American people are starting to wake.

They've already awoken, did you miss the last 2 elections?

Quote

If the Washington protest had occurred under either Bush administration, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

Right, the problem is that these protestors are people who voted for Bush.