Murdering around the world

So apparently, the US gigantic military is "depleted" and needs to be "rebuilt", with a 10% hike in spending of $54 billion required in addition to the $607 billion already being spent every year.

To pay for this, we're hearing that the Trump administration will gut the Environmental Protection Agency (total budget $9 billion) and foreign aid programs (total budget $25 billion), although other discretionary spending (which at $543 billion is already less than the military budget, incredible in itself) will also suffer. These programs potentially include education, health and food stamps.

Trump babbled yesterday about wanting to "win" a war. So who is going to be the unlucky victim this time? Will they wait for a terrorist attack, before blaming the judiciary, the media and moving against some target, or is the level of fear already sufficient?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39108194

 

Well there is North Korea. Legally, the Korean War is still underway and the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against the North Korean regime is still in effect.

Why would you object to a military effort to eliminate arguably the most loathsome and oppressive regimes in the world?

 

Because removing one Hussein with an unjustified war and no plan gets you three nations infested with ISIS.

 

Questions?

1) You think eliminating the North Korean regime would be "unjustified"? Do you know how many people they have killed directly or indirectly? Do you know how many acts of war they have committed against the U.S. over the decades? Answer a whole number of them. Do you know how big a threat they continue to be to U.S. allies like South Korea and Japan?

2) Who says there would be "no plan"? I'm just assuming that planning would be made. Or at least the South Koreans would handle the occupation of their fellow Koreans territory.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/world/us-military-spending-comparison/index.html

The US is extremely inefficient in its military spending. Just see what this would buy in other countries. The UK could buy 14 aircraft carriers, Russia well over 10,000 start of the art tanks, India 200 fighter jets. What exactly will the US get for this spending? Anything other than more money given to military industrial donors?

 

Most U.S. defense spending is on personnel costs. I'll give you a clue, the Russians and Chinese don't bother spending remotely as much on their servicemen. Beyond salaries and benefits, the U.S. spends a great deal on support personnel (such as medical personnel) to give its soldiers the best chance of survival.

Finally, aside from a handful of European forces, the U.S. has basically the only expeditionary military forces in the world. Expeditionary forces cost unit for unit all other things being equal five to six times as much as nonexpeditionary forces.

Finally, the thread title.

Why does Rick imply that American military forces "murder' people?

 

Too bad Tugger won't be around to see this.

 

No. Neither was getting rid of Hussein. But nobody did, and nobody has been removing the Ils either. It only became interesting to the usual suspects to do so for Hussein when it was at once a chance to break international alliances, weaken the UN and NATO, and demonstrate that the US would not be bound by international law.

This says so:

 

Well sure. It's called, as you know, the Military/Industrial Complex. Every president since Jack Kennedy --- and look what happened to him! --- has toed the line, including Carter and Obama.

Remember (hollow laugh) how Donald kept bitching on the campaign trail about the Washington elites?

Whatever. Brace yourself for some sort of Reichstag Fire that will be used to justify both huge further military spending and erosion of civil and human rights. As well as the axing of programmes that actually do people some good.

 

Because that effort would most likely cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, at minimum.

And I dispute that even if it were to be made, that this insane increase to the already bloated budget is a pre-requisite.

 

Because 'removing' the regime would be rather easy. But what then? You've got 23 million brainwashed have-nothings with no idea how the real world works. There is no opposition in place that could take over the country. And given the experience with German reunification it's unlikely the North can ever be integrated into a united Korea (Eastern Germany was open and modern in comparison to NK and they're still not quite there after 27 years). Also, China.

Typical Bushist thinking. Hoo-rah with not a thought wasted on the aftermath

 

The Never-My-Faulter-In-Chief might be giving the military stuff in one hand, but he's just pissed on them with what he's holding in the other (with tweezers):

Yep, the buck doesn't stop here, folks.

I can see this going down like a lead balloon with the military - CinC should man up and shoulder the ultimate responsibility for any ops he sanctions. Especially when he couldn't fucking care enough to plan it in a meeting with actual advisers and did it over dinner, then skipped the playout of the raid in the Operations Room so he could go off and tweet about his fucking crowd sizes.

For the record, NBC is reporting that officials have told them there has been no significant intelligence gained from that raid, in direct contradiction of Trump and Spicer's comments.

 

The North Korean regime is directly responsible for many times as many deaths as the hundreds of thousands you suggest. And will undoubtedly be responsible for the deaths of many, many more.

A sure perhaps the U.S. (and South Korea) could carry out the destruction of the North Korean regime with what we have now.

But.

The more overwhelming our advantages in military strength the more likely we could avoid a prolonged and thus more destructive conflict.

And 3% increase in military spending is far from "insane". Note that Senator John McCain (who does have extensive combat experience and long time stay as a POW) has said that the increase proposed by the Trump Administration is far too low.

 

You seriously think that the North Korean population is simply 23 million unthinking zombies? Very disdainful of your fellow man you appear to be.

 

So? Why does that make your fantasies about murdering more of them okay?

Does not follow. As indicated the issue here is planning, not military superiority.

Fuck John McCain. His experience in dropping bombs on people and then being captured gives him no credibility whatever, regardless of whatever genuflections you choose to perform in front of your armed personnel.

 

It's saber rattling. The whole rhetoric is just more campaigning. Help, help, the military is DEPLETED! Help, help, there is a WAR and we won't win it!

He's just working to create even more fear among Americans. It's more populism, plain and simple. The very, very dumb sort but that's OK. Those who still support him will cheer even if the cuts hit them personally. It's a sign of them that they don't go with the times. They probably still believe in large scale war between superpowers with tanks and dogfights. In reality, modern conflicts need more brains and creativity than brawn. Throwing money won't solve anything but Thomas Kennedy's problem that he cannot afford that gold plated asteroid yet.

I still don't think that Trump is out for a big war. However I do think Bannon is. Because Bannon is basically Dayton but with the power to make it happen.

 

After generations of brainwashing and killing everybody who does think for themselves? Yes, pretty much. It's not their fault, tho.

What do you think would happen in the North if the regime were suddenly removed Saddam-style?

 

I thought most of you here (including you) gave the opinions of people who have served in combat considerably greater weight than someone such as I who've only read about it?

If not when did this change?

And once again, attacking North Korea would not be murder by any known definition of international law. Authorization for the use of force against North Korea by the UN Security Council is still in effect.

are you now claiming UN approval does not matter?

When did you change your position on this?

 

Thousands would die. But not as many as you think as massive food shipments from the U.S. and other nations would help considerably.

As the U.S. found out in Japan after World War Two, when you're feeding starving people they don't tend to be that rebellious

 

I want a strategic analysis. What do you think would happen in the next, say, 50 years?

Think about it before you shoot any more nonsense bullets. Read up. Then answer. Doesn't have to be within 20 seconds. Go and inform yourself from multiple sources, history, projections, analysis and then come back and we can discuss. Your uninformed, ideological and short sighted private opinions are useless in a serious adult conversation on such matters.

 

Their opinions get more weight when discussing matters directly relating to combat. Not about everything else, even if that has to do with cutting other services to pay for more combat.

UN approval is not carte blanche and I have never indicated that it is the only thing that matters. In this case, you're clearly trying to justify using a loophole to start a war.

 

No one can make geopolitical projections of 50 years in the future with the remotest claim for accuracy.

I do believe destroying the North Korean regime and uniting the peninsula under a government in Seoul would result in a stable, prosperous first world nation much like Japan is today. A major force for stability in the region and along with Japan and other regional powers a useful counterweight to the Chinese in the western Pacific.

 

So now a UN Security Council resolution is a "loophole"?

Something people here should remember in the future.

 

Obama's forecast showed a 7% spending increase on the military this year just to replace old equipment that has gotten a lot of use in recent years and to pay for VA claim from vets. Trump's numbers do add three more base points to that but mostly it is in line with Obama's projections.

 

You probably wanted to type 'old', but 'golf' would be hilarious.

 

No, brainwashed.

 

Ahh, yes, it said "olf" instead of "old". Thanks, I edited it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

 

And you'd be wrong. German reunification has cost about 2,5 trillion euros so far according to German government sources (I don't think there is an exact number anywhere but that's the ballpark). It's far from finished a quarter century later.

Eastern Germany was not a post-apocalyptic wasteland with 23 million zombies in it by a long shot. It had industry, an economy, and an educated workforce with a clear understanding of the outside world. NK has nothing of that. Nada. Zilch. A few natural resources in the form of Rare Earths to exploit but that's it.

Again. Not asking for a correct prediction. I just want to know what you think will happen considering the facts, not what you believe. I mean, you are a history teacher. There are some very recent examples as to what happens when leadership, no matter how bad, is removed for shits and giggles. Iraq? Libya? Bueller?

My personal assessment is that Korean reunification would have to be a global project. It's completely impossible for SK alone, even with help from the US and Japan. Additionally, you're forgetting China. China helps out NK because it provides a welcome buffer. Do you think they'd just watch it go away? Refugee crisis anyone? Millions of uneducated slave workers flooding the region? Decades of food aid? Infighting over power that could even lead to a civil war? Kim-ist insurgents waging guerrilla war?

Everything is a tiny little bit more complex than you think. That's why I'm saying: go and inform yourself. It's kinda childish to base every discussion solely on your own uninformed opinion. I mean, not that anyone can ever have the full set of information. But basic knowledge is a good thing to have, won't you agree. Unfortunately your intentions are noble by proxy (freeing a suffering people - for the glory of the United States) but like a good Bushist you're not thinking farther than raising the American flag on the Ryugyŏng hotel.

 

Anyway, North Korea has nukes. We may not be sure whether they'd work ... but who wants to find out?
That's one reason not even Donald & Co would be crazy enough to invade. (Of course, it doesn't have oil either ...)

Saddam didn't have nukes. And people wonder why Iran wants nukes.