Just a thought: killing in the name of?

[Cyrus]

1. What goals did the US have/what reason did the US invade?
2. Did any of those goals succeed?

To me, the goals are relatively clear:
1. Depose the Taliban.
2. Establish a democratic government.
3. Disrupt Afghan-based terrorism.
4. Capture/kill/marginalize Bin Laden.

Im going to have to diagree with you on these points.

1. Replace Taliban with "Al Qiada", there still there.
2. If you leave the city, its run by tribal leaders. Some democratic government you got there.
3. Absolutely not. Attacks on US soldiers are on the rise in Afganistan.
4. Ok, and we created 50 new bin-ladins to replace him. What did that accomplish? (And we did not catch him nor kill him.)

Im sorry, but whole mess has been bungled.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You forgot:-

5:bring stability to the Middle East
5:floundering and floundering badly

You might like to note as well that for the first time in Afghanistan suicide bombers have started to hit various locations, this never happened when the Russians were there, and thinking about the Afghan Russia war, they reinforced Kabul secured it within a few days, then spent years trying to root out insurgents, eventually giving up and leaving? Anyone think the same thing is going to happen again?

I have some nice little statistics on a related war and the number of terrorist attacks after Iraq.

It appears that the number of attacks in the middle east is large, and around the world is growing too? The war on terror in action, or do you think there's no causal link, if I can find the stats I'll put them up. I'll try and fish something out, but I'm sure you've seen the reports already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

Here's a report about a suicide bombing in Afghanistan though, I suspect you heard about it?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20070227-1304-afghan-explosion.html

3. Disrupt Afghan-based terrorism.
3. Done and highly successful.

You mean 3.Failed and failed badly no?

Although the bomber did not get closer than roughly a mile to the vice president, the attack highlighted an increasingly precarious security situation posed by the resurgent Taliban. Five years after U.S.-led forces toppled their regime, Taliban-led militants have stepped up attacks. There were 139 suicide bombings last year, a fivefold increase over 2005, and a fresh wave of violence is expected this spring.

The guerrillas, according to NATO officials, have the flexibility to organize an attack quickly and may have been able to plan a bombing at the base while Cheney was there after hearing news reports on Monday that he was delayed by bad weather. The Taliban have attacked in the area north of the capital in the past even though people living in the Bagram area have not been supportive of the guerrillas. Col. Tom Collins, the top spokesman for the NATO force, said the Taliban had a cell in Kabul that could have traveled the 30 miles north to Bagram.

Asked if the Taliban were trying to send a message with the attack, Cheney said: “I think they clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government. Striking at Bagram with a suicide bomber, I suppose, is one way to do that. But it shouldn't affect our behavior at all.”

OK any more shining examples?

 

[Futobingoro]

About the military-industrial complex:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4319/defensespendingok2.png http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf (note that data for 2007-2012 are estimates)

Those graphs don't include discretionary budget, but they still show a general trend over time. WW2 and the Korean War show clearly; Vietnam to a lesser extent. Perhaps of more interest is the surprisingly small increases during the Reagan & Bush Jr. years. I have read some very fiery criticism of Reagan and Bush Jr.'s defense spending, but it looks like it's mostly hype. Budgeted defense spending is at all-time lows. All those boldface triple-digit billion-dollar numbers are non-starters. I will try to make a graph of defense spending (including discretionary spending) and another of human resources spending later.

Edit: http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2548/defensespending2tl6.png Note how, in terms of percent of outlays, one increases at the expense of the other.

 

[Gokul43201]

Iraq were the antagonists in that case. Usually you can take antagonists as those who instigate the war by invasion normally. In the case of Afghanistan it was the allies...

Your logic, which again, you fail to actually show us, eludes me. I've explained more than once, that it was al Qaeda+Taliban, who instigated the invasion of Afghanistan, not the Allies. You simply refute this without any explanation whatsoever.

It seems that in each case, you apply the label instigator/antagonist, to the group that you believe has gained nothing out of the war. Of course, you do not clearly explain why you believe that these groups have gained nothing either.

Here's a counterexample: Bush - your instigator of the war in Afghanistan - gained a re-election here as a result of going into war.

 

[Cyrus]

About the military-industrial complex:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4319/defensespendingok2.png http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf (note that data for 2007-2012 are estimates)

Those graphs don't include discretionary budget, but they still show a general trend over time. WW2 and the Korean War show clearly; Vietnam to a lesser extent. Perhaps of more interest is the surprisingly small increases during the Reagan & Bush Jr. years. I have read some very fiery criticism of Reagan and Bush Jr.'s defense spending, but it looks like it's mostly hype. Budgeted defense spending is at all-time lows. All those boldface triple-digit billion-dollar numbers are non-starters. I will try to make a graph of defense spending (including discretionary spending) and another of human resources spending later.

Edit: http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2548/defensespending2tl6.png Note how, in terms of percent of outlays, one increases at the expense of the other.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

Just because it has declined from an absurd number does not mean its good.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956 billion.

While the overall U.S. military budget has risen over time, as a percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 3.7% on military. This compares higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[3] This is historically fairly low for the United States. While the spending budget has been slowly rising, the spending rate has been in a slow decline since peaking in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP. Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[4]

Yet some say that to compare government spending on the military to the total sum of all goods and services produced by the national economy in a year (the GDP) is to mislead, since the U.S. GDP has dramatically risen over time, and therefore the military budget can still go up, while simultaneously demanding a smaller percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and is steadily rising.[5] It should be noted, however, that discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays[1], and that comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account.

Finally, it must be stressed that the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (i.e. are paid for through supplementary spending bills) and are therefore external to the military budget figures listed above.[6] In addition, the United States has long had a history of black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Thus, the true amount spent by the United States on military spending is significantly higher than the given budgetary figures.

Intersting. It appears your graphs are on the mark in terms of low GDP overall.

 

[Futobingoro]

Keep in mind that China and Russia's military spending look less benign when one takes purchasing power into account. Although the Big Mac index is probably an oversimplification here, it has an accurate premise. At least as far as Big Macs are concerned, Russia and China have about double the purchasing power of the US. I remember having read (sorry, I don't remember the source) that Russian spending in some sectors of military technology enjoys purchasing power 15 times greater than comparable American sectors. Additionally, it seems that China, and probably Russia, also practice black budget spending:

Chinese defense spending
Russian defense spending

I do not think I will be able to fully account for discretionary military spending in revising my earlier graphs, as my http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf includes discretionary figures only from 1976 onwards. I will say that a revised graph will show a higher proportion of military spending, as military spending has historically accounted for a large portion of discretionary spending. I predict that, even when corrected for discretionary spending, however, military budget authority will still not approach the budget authority for human resources.

And, to be honest, US policies have favored having enough power (whether measured in manpower, technology, purchasing power, etc.) to be able to defeat all enemies on all fronts, so that may be a good explanation for the fact that US defense spending almost outstrips the combined defense spending of the rest of the world.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Your logic, which again, you fail to actually show us, eludes me. I've explained more than once, that it was al Qaeda+Taliban, who instigated the invasion of Afghanistan, not the Allies. You simply refute this without any explanation whatsoever.

So the mostly Pashtun, Afghani Taliban, invaded their own country and then requested Al-qaeda invade their country? You've lost me now? Did I not explain that civil wars can't really be counted as a victory or loss, since both sides are from the same country.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

I think you need to find out who the Taliban are, they are Afghani Mujahideen, I'm not sure entirely how they can invade their own country, maybe they were anatagonistic to there own country and against themselves? The civil war never really ended it just simmered down after one faction the Taliban gained control, there was no invasion, this is comparable to Vietnam, for the Russians.

It seems that in each case, you apply the label instigator/antagonist, to the group that you believe has gained nothing out of the war. Of course, you do not clearly explain why you believe that these groups have gained nothing either.

No it seems that you have no comprehension of what invader and defender means

Here's a counterexample: Bush - your instigator of the war in Afghanistan - gained a re-election here as a result of going into war.

Did you read my clarifiication or was that just an inconvenience?

Iraq were the antagonists in that case. Usually you can take antagonists as those who instigate the war by invasion normally. In the case of Afghanistan it was the allies, in the case of Iraq it was the allies, in the case of the Iraq-Kuwait war it was Saddam, in the case of a civil war there can be a number of antagonists, if another country gets involved then it's an antagonist/ally regardless of what side it's on, as is the original instigator in this case, although obviously it's a bit hard to judge a win or a loss for a country in a civil war. By antagonist I mean the invading army generally, those who are on the aggressors side rather than the defenders. Germany in WWII with England and its allies as the defenders. The Falklands, Argentina as the aggressors, UK the defenders.

initially civil war-which country won?

Here's a counterexample: Bush - your instigator of the war in Afghanistan - gained a re-election here as a result of going into war.

oh dear, I suppose Bush personally invaded Afghanistan as well, I'm talking about countries here not individuals, what country benefits from this?

 

[Werg22]

The whole armed fight against terrorism is plainly absurd. Terrorism is not a State or a singular organization - its head is not centralized. Rather, it's an ideology, and an ideology cannot be tamed with weapons. On top of this, I have to say that the state of affairs is quite alarming. First, why does terrorism exist? The short answer: the existence of Israel. It all starts there. Tensions between the West and the Middle-East all have their roots in this single issue. As long as it isn't solve, terrorism will always exist. Fighting terrorism is like trying to fill a holed bucket - we are not solving this the right way.

 

[Futobingoro]

The whole armed fight against terrorism is plainly absurd. Terrorism is not a State or a singular organization - its head is not centralized. Rather, it's an ideology, and an ideology cannot be tamed with weapons.

I am certain there have been many ideologies that have been destroyed, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

 

[denverdoc]

I am certain there have been many ideologies that have been destroyed, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

Flat-earther numbers are down according to a recent poll, rumor has it they slid off the edge.

 

[Futobingoro]

Getting back to Chinese defense spending, there was a relevant development today:

China will boost military spending by 17.8 percent this year, a spokesman for the national legislature said Sunday, continuing more than a decade of double-digit annual increases that have raised concerns among the United States and China's neighbors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400168.html

By comparison, page 58 of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf predicts a 9.6% increase in American defense spending from 2006 to 2007, with projected decreases by 2012.

In my opinion, China's defense spending is not an immediate cause for concern. At the very least they are modernizing, though they are probably working toward something more ambitious.

 

[denverdoc]

Getting back to Chinese defense spending, there was a relevant development today:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400168.html

In my opinion, China's defense spending is not an immediate cause for concern. At the very least they are modernizing, though they are probably working toward something more ambitious.

True, i worry much more about our outspending the entire world. :grumpy: