If your military is sufficiently big, no one wants to attack you because they know theirs is too small to win. “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
If you are spending just barely enough, that means sooner or later, someone will attack, because they mistakenly believe they will win. Then, you have to spend more in order to actually conduct and win the war than you would have if you had spent a bit more prior to it, to have a military good enough to actually dissuade them from attacking in the first place.
If you spend a bit less than the “just barely”, then you’ve bought the world’s most expensive luxury item: a 2nd best military. All that money, straight down the shitter, because someone attacks and you lose.
“Who’s attacking?” is a ridiculously bad standard on which to judge your military spending level.
Yep, that one man’s name is Kim Jung Il. And based on your figures, one man does not control 40 percent of the wealth in America, roughly 3 million people would.
We want oil (War on terror), we get oil (Gulf of Mexico). But if you put that 1,5 million personnel in a factory, you get a whole lot of new cars. And less bodies.
From the article: “A lot of farmers aren’t able to get the fresh vegetables and whole fruits to schools because they can’t afford the transportation. The produce rots in the fields.” Hmmm - they need fuel.
Cheshire Human - that marmite is strong stuff - just a dab of it on my tequilla worm please. I drink therefore I am.
Um, says who? Not so much the wives thing but the earning thing. Some people ten times more, why shouldn’t they earn ten times more? Lots of people are useless, and lots of people are detrimental.
The United States doesn’t exactly rank well as far as income equality, but lots of countries are worse.
Or just do it the old-fashioned way and type for a smile, for a frown, for a wink, and :o for a blow job. When you post, the board software will convert them automatically, unless you tell it not to.
…to legimate a state authority, but there is none or (people near)the government (are) is violating it. In Anarchy the fittest survive, not the wealthiest/people near the government.
Um, the article you linked to has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you present your arguments like this? Look through some other Great Debates threads. Do you notice anything different about the way others make their arguments from your rather abstract and minimalist approach? If someone writes something about economic inequality or simplistic Chinese views of sovereignty and nationalism, it is not generally considered a rebuttal to take 5 words they said out of context and link them to an article debating the legality of the War in Afghanistan.
Not a connection, there. Have you got any idea how they are rebuilding in Iraq? Something similar happened in Russia after Gorbatchev. Did the local oligarchy earn billions of dollars in ten years by working? No the government sold ownership of everything to their buddies. And so did GWB in Iraq.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but sounds like Chinese Democracy to me.
for a smile, 
for a wink, and :o for a blow job. When you post, the board software will convert them automatically, unless you tell it not to.