Reap what you sow-military expenditure vs development aid.

Why do you use a raw value for military expenditure, but a percentage of national income (GNP?) for foreign aid?

 

The world was a hostile place before the US had a large military.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

 

I hate to sound so ******* anachronistic, but as long as Russia, well, exists, I think we have to have the biggest military. We will always have competing interests in Europe. For all of our legitimate focus on the Middle East, it just seems like Africa with common cultures and an organized religion (and the relative stability that comes from it).

 

I agree, instead of upping our military presence in Afghanistan we should try rebuilding their economy and government with educational and medical facilities. I think this would remove a lot of the risk of low income, desperate teens joining the Taliban.

On a side note, we should really try using this strategy with Mexico. If we are so worried about people constantly crossing our border illegally, why don't we try helping Mexico get their **** together.

It won't fix everything, but it is a start and I really believe that if we lift these people out of their impoverished lives they will start to see the US in a different light.

 

is it time to close the UN yet?

 

Needing the biggest military is not the same as needing a military bigger than the combined forces of the next dozen largest militaries combined, and it is certainly not the same as needing to spend the same amount on the military as the rest of the whole freaking planet combined.

 

In response to Ottomaton:, I think if you see the above graph where it shows we spend 10005 more on military funding than foreign aid, you can understand why we're not very liked around the world. It's hard to convince Afghans you're helping them rebuild their country when most of your budget is being used to build planes and bombs for the war instead of schools and hospitals.

 

We have the most expensive, not the largest.

 

Unless they just want you to get rid of the dudes shooting at them.

 

Or it could just be that many of our allies don't worry about having more than a token military because they know that our military is ready to respond to possible threats? Hence they don't spend much while we spend billions in our role as the "world police".

 

We actually spend a great deal on "foreign aid," but the vast majority of it is from the billions of dollars we fork over to Israel and Egypt to maintain the "peace." Grain for Egypt's teeming millions to try to keep "the lid on." Billions of dollars of military assistance (most of our aid is military) that goes to two or three countries. Non-military aid is a pittance in comparison. The chark showing the % of non-military aid to military aid? In other words, what we spend as a % of our GDP? A pitiful number today. 40-50-60 years ago, we shelled out a much larger % of GDP in non-military aid, even though we had a vastly larger military in existence, and a very real threat to the US and our allies from the Soviet Union and their underlings. US entities like USAID did tremendous work, much of it done by members of academia taking sabaticals to get out there, get down, and often get dirty. I personally know/knew (several have passed away) a couple of dozen professors who spent their summers for years working overseas in underdeveloped/developing countries during the Cold War. Countries like India, Pakistan, Bangledesh, Nigeria, to name a few, and it was very safe to do so. Nothing like it is today, when you can be in great danger, depending on where you are. And, for an example, this wasn't the India of today. That India owes a debt of gratitude to many US aid programs that planted the seeds that have grown into powerhouses like Bangalore. The India I speak of still had statues of Queen Victoria stuck in the back of public parts, uncertain what to do with them. When I was there, it had been less than 20 years since the British had left a now independent India. Relics of empire were everywhere. Honestly, it was damned fascinating to a history buff.

We spent more, we accomplished more, and we are fools to let what was once such a credit to the US, something that won friends for us and our allies, devolve into the dangerous and underfunded programs of today. Programs with many new ideas that are well worth backing and have little money to back them with.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

I guess I don't understand how this is in response to what I wrote in any way shape or form.

People haven't changed. They still covet what the other guy has. They still are very limited in their ability to see things from other viewpoints.

 

That may be true of the entire military. However, our Navy is still larger in terms of tonnage than the next 13 largest Navies combined, 11 of which are US allies.

 

I posted this yesterday in another thread... here's MLK, Jr. talking about this very topic... he very much agrees that we are our own worst enemy.

 

But those people are brown and eat that spicy food and are so rude that talk that gibberish instead of proper English. Not to mention that they behead people, live in our emergency rooms, and vote for Democrats.

Shoot 'em at the border and let the smart ones that make it through put up the new rock wall I want in my garden.

Besides, why would we do that for Mexico instead of increasing my stock holdings with a contract for the latest weapons system and giving me a capital gains cut to 0%? That's the best way to spur investment and lift all boats, those people included. Charity begins at home and I deserve a good chunk of it because I work hard managing my inherited investments.