Comments on: America’s Arsenal Aimed at China

By: buy cronous gold

buy cronous gold — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:55:16 +0000

Moreover I could also be able to afford the things which I wanted to buy, and could buy cronous gold to give to others, I was very happy.

By: cheap kamas

cheap kamas — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:53:24 +0000

Hah, at that time, I was not a height of snake, and I also lost many cheap kamas because killed the snake.

By: Anand

Anand — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 02:10:24 +0000

This American Administration just want to keep painting everybody in this world who happen to subscribe to different religious belief or happen to be NOT 'white' as perceived enemies in order to justify the continuous existence of this military industrial complex so forewarned by Ike in the early 60's. The Americans, as pointed out by the recent IMF report are already borrowing more than two thirds of the world's net savings or 2.2 billion dollars a day just to finance this 'American way' of life. One cannot help but wonder how long this can go on as all these obscene money just go to enrich a few of the well connected fat cats. Looks like the American public needs to wake up and stop listening to all these lies and misinformation and do something positive about their near bankrupt country. All these mmoney could have been better spent in fighting diseases like AIDS and cancer instead on armaments. Why can't we Christians live with other God's children in peace and harmony? Why must we need to have perceived enemies when we don't need any? Who's to judge others when this American Administration spends over 500 billion dollars on the defence budget which is heck of a lot more than the Chinese are spending.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:04:16 +0000

Powermonging, battling perceived threats, and greed, i.e. spending insane pots of cash on defense, or actually trying to decrease the NEED for threats, power and greed worldwide, i.e. spending on the reduction of poverty and suffering, and science. Which is better?
The US is on top, and plans to stay there. That aim, in itself, has reduced it to the greatest threat to worldwide freedom of the last, say, 81 years, not least freedom in the US itself. If you’re an American, you won’t care. Which is why we won’t when the US fail and even more Americans are plunged into abject poverty.

By: McAristotle

McAristotle — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:03:10 +0000

Maybe because any new project to target insurgency
would deliver like 10 years later.
Plus no track record has been shown of technology making a huge difference in insurgency — which can just adjust tactics. If you have an explosive detector, they can just learn to seal the explosives under plastic to hide fumes or make decoys…If you have armored humvees — you make bigger bombs.
And long to not, the ‘War on Terror’ will have moved on by then. It may still be on but I doubt there would be an Iraq situation.
Besides this might be a game theory signal to China to stop its current Defense budget growth which is higher than its economic growth…

By: dj elliott

dj elliott — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:08:18 +0000

DS:
I would love to see the people who leak these classified studies/planning procecuted for the felony they have commited.
However, most of them are in congress.
And the reporters who act as their accessories think they are above the law.
The inherent flaw in a free society. I have not came up with fix for it that does not unduely surpress our freedom, have you?

By: JQP

JQP — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:18:59 +0000

With Russia selling oil and gas to China so as to allow China to expand over the next decade or so looks a win — win for both parties. Things could look a lot worse if OPEC or some members from OPEC decided to concentrate upon meeting the energy requirements of both China and India then the West might well have cause to worry. To echo thoughts made by DS send in the politicians, trade officials and others as jaw, jaw is preferable to war, war.

By: Murc

Murc — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:53:57 +0000

This isn’t anything new.
Its smart to plan for the big war, and hope it never happens.
I can see the argument that the money would be better spent on counter-terrorism type of projects, whether that be from IED destroyers or securing our border better by using more people, cameras, and UAV’s, but you MUST keep the capability to go toe-2-toe with ANY nation on earth, to me, thats simply not negotiable.

By: DS

DS — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:11:44 +0000

I can’t tell you how nice it is to be kicking around issues on a forum with reasonably thinking people, and without the mindless banter that goes on elsewhere…
: )

By: katsesama

katsesama — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:03:13 +0000

Its easy to point out the policy differences in
regards to china and the middle east.Its two
different types of warfare,though i don’t believe the perspectives been squed one more
over the other.The situation in the middle east
demands a proactive approach because the enemy is
an active one,and resources are at issue.The chinese
situation is of some concern because of chinas long
term ambitions,but requires steady preperation as
china is only just now transitioning from an self
defensive military posture to one with aims at
projecting potential global power.So yes,we should
put some more thought into the long war as the popular mechanics article suggests because of its
immediacy,but one would be remiss to not pay some
attention to the rising dragon in the east.