|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kadath
Okay, dude, first of all, it's Pokem on, duh!! 
In all seriousness, I (even though I am such a pacifist that I'm for the Peace Tax, a means by which taxpayers opposed to violence could have their tax money spent on things other than tanks) would never compare our defense budget to a toy obsession. I do, however, strongly disagree with this country's priorities. Sadly, nothing is going to change until we get a Democrat back in the White House. This all looks very similar to Reagan Era spending, and we lived through that. The Republicans spend a bunch of money on defense and try to build an empire, and the Democrats come behind them and force us back on track. |
Funny, I would have said the Democrats screw up the economy, and the Republicans always have to clean it up. I haven't forgotten Jimmy Carter's 13% annual inflation, and we're just now getting over the Clinton-Gore recession.
However, I like the idea of using a "menu" for taxes. Definitely NOT on my menu would be most welfare, foreign aid, and the salaries of Teddy Kennedy and Robert "KKK" Byrd.
As for the defense budget,
Link
Quote:
Friend or Foe – China’s Intentions Toward the United States
Years of investment and careful planning by China to become the world’s preeminent manufacturing and possibly military power are increasingly being realized. As industries and manufacturers from around the world flock to China for cheap labor, China is carefully strategizing how to dominate global production in several industries, the foremost of which is shipbuilding. In this regard, China has dramatically increased its investments in shipbuilding – investments which are producing chilling implications.
In an analysis by the American Shipbuilding Association, China’s global market share of commercial shipbuilding has gone from virtually zero in 1990 to around 14% in 2004. With its commercial shipbuilding market established, China has been concentrating on the production of ships for its navy. According to a study by the Center for Defense Information, China ranks third globally in defense spending behind the United States and Russia. Starting with the purchase of naval ships from Russia, the Chinese have been transitioning to independent design and production of its own ships – rolling out the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines in December of last year. Based on current build rates, it is estimated that China will have more submarines than the United States by 2010, and will eclipse the size of the entire U.S. fleet by 2015, or sooner.
In order to learn more about China’s economic and military capabilities, a Congressional delegation made up of Representatives Randy Forbes (R-VA), Ike Skelton (D-MO), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rick Larsen (D-WA), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Steve Pearce (R-NM), and Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) recently toured China, returning to the U.S. with grave impressions about China’s ability to make good on its plans to become the world’s leading manufacturer of ships, and left Members uneasy about China’s future military intentions. Expressing his observations in a February 1st article that appeared in The Hill, Rep. Neil Abercrombie was quoted as saying "If you want to see a bunch of …serious-faced members of Congress, you should’ve seen us after visiting [their shipyards]… capability is hardly the word. Those ships are flying out of there." In a January 24th interview with William Matthews, a reporter for Defense News, Rep. Forbes, stated that "we [the Congressional delegation] weren’t sure whether they [China] were going to be our best friend or our worst enemy." Calls are already being made on Capital Hill for in-depth hearings on China’s naval shipbuilding and intentions.
Though no act of overt aggression has been made towards the U.S. since the 2001 grounding of an American naval patrol aircraft, China is not sitting idly by. In a January 18th article that appeared in the Washington Times, reporter Bill Gertz outlined the contents of an internal report prepared for the Defense Department. In excerpts from the Washington Times, article, "China is adopting a 'string of pearls' strategy of bases and diplomatic ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China…" - with many of these "pearls" being located along major commercial sea lanes. The article suggested that there is increasing concern that China seeks to militarily control the sea lanes, with a navy large enough to take on the United States should this country intervene. [All together now, class: T A I W A N]
Discussions on what is now being realized as a legitimate, rather than a theoretical threat, cannot occur soon enough. And what may have been a threat that was considered to be decades away, could materialize much sooner. As has been widely reported, the European Union is just steps away from lifting its arms embargo towards China. Though many U.S. allies have, for years, been selling technology to China for commercial use, much of that technology is considered "dual use", having both a commercial and military application. By formally lifting the embargo on the sale of military technology it is likely that technology transfers to China will greatly increase. Keep in mind that much of the technology is of U.S. origin and design.
If China’s intentions shift to aggression and hostility, the United States will be in jeopardy. Years of underinvestment in our naval fleet have dwindled its numbers to 289 ships. Though our Navy is the superior power on the seas today, numbers of ships are critical. Outnumbered by a navy that might use our own technologies against us is a rather terrifying prospect. It is a fear that neither the Administration, Congress, nor the Nation can afford to ignore.
|
Just what I've been expecting--to have a missile aimed at me, guided by technology Clinton and Loral sold to the Chinese. |