Thinking about Vice-Presidents

[dj-chefron]

I know Obama still has a ways to go and the Clinton's will fight and divide the party for what they believe is her destiny, but here are a few names of possible V.P.
Gen.Anthony Zinni
General Anthony C. Zinni was the former Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

General Zinni was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1965 upon graduation from Villanova University. After completion of The Basic School he was assigned to the 2d Marine Division, where he served as a Platoon Commander, Company Executive Officer, and Company Commander in the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines. He also served as a Company Commander in the 1st Infantry Training Regiment during this tour.

In 1967, General Zinni was assigned as an Infantry Battalion Advisor to the Vietnamese Marine Corps. Following Vietnam, he was ordered to The Basic School where he served as a Tactics Instructor, Platoon Commander, and Company Executive Officer. In 1970, he returned to Vietnam as a Company Commander in 1st Battalion, 5th Marines where he was wounded, evacuated, and subsequently assigned to the 3d Force Service Regiment on Okinawa. There he served as a Company Commander and Guard Officer. General Zinni returned to the 2d Marine Division in 1971 where he served as a Company Commander in the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, Aide to the Commanding General, and Officer in Charge of the Infantry Training Center. In 1974, he was assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, where he was assigned as the Retention and Release Officer and Plans Officer in the Officer Assignment Branch of the Manpower Department.

General Zinni again served in the 2d Marine Division in 1978, as the Operations Officer of the 3d Battalion, 2d Marines, Executive Officer of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, Executive Officer of the 8th Marines and Commanding Officer of the 2d Battalion, 8th Marines. In 1981, he was assigned as an operations and tactics instructor at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College at Quantico, Virginia. He was next assigned to the Operations Division at Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps where he served as the Head of the Special Operations and Terrorism Counteraction Section and as the Head, Marine Air-Ground Task Force Concepts and Capabilities Branch. During 1986, he was selected as a fellow on the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group. From 1987 to 1989, General Zinni served on Okinawa as the Regimental Commander of the 9th Marines and the Commanding Officer of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, which was twice deployed to the Philippines to conduct emergency security operations and disaster reli

ef operations. Upon his return to the U.S. he was assigned as the Chief of Staff of the Marine Air-Ground Training and Education Center at Quantico.

His initial general officer assignment was as the Deputy Director of Operations at the U.S. European Command. In 1991, he served as the Chief of Staff and Deputy Commanding General of Combined Task Force PROVIDE COMFORT during the Kurdish relief effort in Turkey and Iraq. He also served as the Military Coordinator for Operation PROVIDE HOPE, the relief effort for the former Soviet Union. During 1992-93, he served as the Director for Operations for the Unified Task Force Somalia for Operation RESTORE HOPE. Also in 1993, he served as the Assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy to Somalia during Operation CONTINUE HOPE. General Zinni was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA, from 1992 to 1994.

From 1994 to 1996, he served as the Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force. During early 1995, General Zinni served as Commander of the Combined Task Force for Operation UNITED SHIELD, protecting the withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia.

From September, 1996 until August, 1997 General Zinni served as the Deputy Commander in Chief, United States Central Command.

He has attended The Basic School, Army Special Warfare School, Amphibious Warfare School, Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the National War College. He holds a bachelor's degree in Economics, a master of arts degree in International Relations, and a master of arts degree in Management and Supervision.

General Zinni's decorations include: the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; the Defense Superior Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters; the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award; the Purple Heart; the Meritorious Service Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award; the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award; the Combat Action Ribbon; the Vietnamese Honor Medal; the French National Order of Merit; and the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic.

James WebbJim Webb is descended principally from the Scotch-Irish settlers who came to this country from Northern Ireland in the 18th century and became pioneers in the Virginia mountains. Through the 1800's and early 1900's, Mr. Webb's ancestors moved steadily west and south from Virginia, most often to settlements in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri. In the mid-1900's many members of the family joined the westward migration to California, and the family is now scattered throughout the continental United States.

Both sides of Mr. Webb's family have a strong citizen-soldier military tradition that predates the Revolutionary War. Mr. Webb's father was a career Air Force officer who flew B-17s and B-29s during World War Two, cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift, and was a pioneer in the United States missile program. Colonel Webb, who was the first family member to finish high school and who graduated from the University of Omaha in 1962 after 26 years of night school, put the first Atlas missile into place for the Air Force in the late 1950's, and held an unsurpassed success-rate record as commander of an Atlas, Thor, and Scout Junior missile squadron during the early 1960's. During the Vietnam war he served at Air Force Systems command on sensitive satellite link programs and as a legislative affairs officer in the Pentagon, leading him to become a vocal critic of Defense Secretary McNamara's leadership methods and causing him eventually to retire from the Air Force, partially in protest of the manner in which the Vietnam War was being micromanaged by the political process.

Jim Webb grew up on the move, attending more than a dozen different schools across the U.S. and in England. He graduated from high school in Bellevue, Nebraska. First attending the University of Southern California on an NROTC academic scholarship, he left for the Naval Academy after one year. At the Naval Academy he was a four-year member of the Brigade Honor Committee, a varsity boxer, and was one of six finalists in the interviewing process for Brigade Commander during his senior year. Graduating in l968 he chose a commission in the Marine Corps, and was one of 18 in his class of 841 to receive the Superintendent's Commendation for outstanding leadership contributions while a midshipman. First in his class of 243 at the Marine Corps Officer's Basic School in Quantico, Virginia, he then served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam, where as a rifle platoon and company commander in the infamous An Hoa Basin west of Danang he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. He later served as a platoon commander and as an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, and then as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's immediate staff, before leaving the Marine Corps in l972.

Mr. Webb spent the "Watergate years" as a student at the Georgetown University Law Center, arriving just after the Watergate break-in in 1972, and receiving his J.D. just after the fall of South Vietnam in l975. While at Georgetown he began a six-year pro bono representation of a Marine who had been convicted of war crimes in Vietnam (finally clearing the man's name in 1978, three years after his suicide), won the Horan award for excellence in legal writing, and authored his first book, Micronesia and U.S. Pacific Strategy. He also worked in Asia as a consultant to the Governor of Guam, conducting a study of U.S. military land needs in Asia, and their impact on Guam's political future.

Mr. Webb has written six best-selling novels: Fields of Fire (l978), considered by many to be the classic novel of the Vietnam war, A Sense of Honor (l981), A Country Such As This (1983), Something To Die For (1991), The Emperor's General (1999) and Lost Soldiers (2001). He taught literature at the Naval Academy as their first visiting writer, has traveled worldwide as a journalist, and his PBS coverage of the U.S. Marines in Beirut earned him an Emmy Award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

In government, Mr. Webb served in the U.S. Congress as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from l977 to l98l, becoming the first Vietnam veteran to serve as a full committee counsel in the Congress. During the Reagan Administration he was the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from l984 to l987, where he directed considerable research and analysis of the U.S. military's mobilization capabilities and spent much time with our NATO allies. In 1987 he became the first Naval Academy graduate in history to serve in the military and then become Secretary of the Navy. He resigned from that position in 1988 after refusing to agree in the reduction of the Navy's force structure during congressionally-mandated budget cuts.

Among Mr. Webb's many other awards for community service and professional excellence are the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal, the Medal of Honor Society's Patriot Award, the American Legion National Commander's Public Service Award, the VFW's Media Service Award, the Marine Corps League's Military Order of the Iron Mike Award, the John Russell Leader-ship Award, and the Robert L. Denig Distinguished Service Award. He was a Fall, 1992 Fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics.

Mr. Webb travels extensively, particularly in Asia, as a journalist, business consultant and screenwriter-producer. He speaks Vietnamese and has done extensive pro bono work with the Vietnamese community dating from the late l970's. In 1989 he met with key Japanese government and industrial officials as a featured guest of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. He has worked on feature film projects with many of Hollywood's top producers. His original story Rules of Engagement, which he also executive-produced, was released in April 2000 and starred Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson. It was the number one film in the US for two weeks.
His fifth novel The Emperor's General was purchased by Paramount pictures as the largest book-to-film deal of 1998. His book Born Fighting, How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, which is his first commercial non-fiction effort, was published in October 2004 by Broadway Books. It is currently in its 10th printing.

[Steven Stewart]

Hmmm very interesting that you think he needs someone with a Military background.....:wink:

[chldfknungrnd764]

Hmmm very interesting that you think he needs someone with a Military background.....:wink:

Gen. Zinni was the base co. when I was in MCRD in 1985.

Webb was Sec of the Navy in the late 80s.

Two choices with good backgrounds, will the masses go for it?

[TAB.]

Gen. Zinni was the base co. when I was in MCRD in 1985.

Webb was Sec of the Navy in the late 80s.

Two choices with good backgrounds, will the masses go for it?

If Obama needs Crossovers, Independents, and folks concerned about National Security, these considerations are essential.

[chldfknungrnd764]

If Obama needs Crossovers, Independents, and folks concerned about National Security, these considerations are essential.

He's not getting elected during a peaceful period.

Strong cabinet choices are definately needed.

[Moksha]

Maybe good Sec of Defense choices... but not good VP choices.

[dj-chefron]

Hmmm very interesting that you think he needs someone with a Military background.....:wink:You know the repubs will framed the debate around we all going to die if you elect a Dem.The electorate is not the democratic party where I live at its god guns and country and you will need someone who speaks that language.

[chldfknungrnd764]

Maybe good Sec of Defense choices... but not good VP choices.

Interesting thought.:biggrin:

[TAB.]

You know the repubs will framed the debate around we all going to die if you elect a Dem.The electorate is not the democratic party where I live at its god guns and country and you will need someone who speaks that language.

Exactly. James Webb won that Senate Race in a Red State, in part by touting his Military background(that Mukaka slip by Allen helped, too).

I was reading about Obama reaching to Colin Powell, a while back. Thats a good move.

[Dolemite73]

Maybe good Sec of Defense choices... but not good VP choices.

Agreed. You VP should be someone who should replace you 8 years down the line. Someone like Tim Kaine or Mark Warner (both from Virginia) would be better IMO.

[Moksha]

Exactly. James Webb won that Senate Race in a Red State, in part by touting his Military background(that Mukaka slip by Allen helped, too).


Won because of macaca. Even then, he only won by a couple tenths of a percentage point.

i thought about Webb earlier... but, I think it was Doug, who gave a good argument as to why it wouldn't be an ideal choice.

Also... bringing your loaded gun with you to the Senate is a bit weird...

[chldfknungrnd764]

Agreed. You VP should be someone who should replace you 8 years down the line. Someone like Tim Kaine or Mark Warner (both from Virginia) would be better IMO.


A point that needs more discussion regarding VP.

[TAB.]

A point that needs more discussion regarding VP.

Gotta win the office, first. How's he gonna address the question, some have already put forth about his ability to defend the Country? After securing the Nomination, does he start making public, a possible Cabinet list. The GOP's gonna sow those seeds of doubt, in this area.

A strong VP, address it. It did for Bush and Cheney, (unfortunately).

[Steven Stewart]

Gotta win the nomination, first. How's he gonna address the question, some have already put forth about his ability to defend the Country? After securing the Nomination, does he start making public, a possible Cabinet list. The GOP's gonna sow those seeds of doubt, in this area.

A strong VP, address it. It did for Bush and Cheney, (unfortunately).


FIXED

[dj-chefron]

I am sick and tired of losing elections partly because of the choices of VP.Joe Leiberman who was playing footsie with Cheney just wanting to be bff.John Edwards while I like him was out of his league with the war on the table.Who was Dukakis running mate? We are in a battle with people who will lie steal and cheat to maintain the status qou.No more conceding the defence of the country to chickenhawks.With a bloated Military budget we are going to need people with cred to cut that sh%t to something thats realistic.Like to hear other names though.

[shanequa sanchez]

kansas governor kathleen sebelius ...
she gave the democratic response to shrub's state of the union address.
there's a buzz around her....

[Steven Stewart]

IWith a bloated Military budget we are going to need people with cred to cut that sh%t to something thats realistic.Like to hear other names though.

Why do you think the Military Budget needs to be cut?

[TAB.]

I am sick and tired of losing elections partly because of the choices of VP.Joe Leiberman who was playing footsie with Cheney just wanting to be bff.John Edwards while I like him was out of his league with the war on the table.Who was Dukakis running mate? We are in a battle with people who will lie steal and cheat to maintain the status qou.No more conceding the defence of the country to chickenhawks.With a bloated Military budget we are going to need people with cred to cut that sh%t to something thats realistic.Like to hear other names though.

Kerry may have saved his race, if he had selected someone like Wesley Clark. The doubts about Iraq, fucked him, big time.

[Dolemite73]

Why do you think the Military Budget needs to be cut?

600 billion is entirely too much in relation to our domestic needs.

[dj-chefron]

Why do you think the Military Budget needs to be cut?At 800 billion dollars where do I start.Ballistic Missle defence at 15 to 30 billion,contrary to popular beleive it just doesnt work,never have never will.The f-22 raptor now I can see where you get a hard on watching this plane but the F-15 F-18 still have air superiority we dont need it and cant afford it. V-22 Osprey great concept but I wouldnt trust my life in one.There are a lot more boondoggles that is bankrupting us we should have a prize with the most insane defence related item.

[Armento]

Why do you think the Military Budget needs to be cut?
Because it's not protecting us from shit (noone's attacking us overtly and we'll not stop the terrorists) and is only serving to make the rich richer... military industrial complex.

[Steven Stewart]

600 billion is entirely too much in relation to our domestic needs.

What domestic needs? Universal health Care?

[Steven Stewart]

At 800 billion dollars where do I start.Ballistic Missle defence at 15 to 30 billion,contrary to popular beleive it just doesnt work,never have never will.The f-22 raptor now I can see where you get a hard on watching this plane but the F-15 F-18 still have air superiority we dont need it and cant afford it. V-22 Osprey great concept but I wouldnt trust my life in one.There are a lot more boondoggles that is bankrupting us we should have a prize with the most insane defence related item.

I suppose you think a 57 Chevy is still an good economical option.

[Steven Stewart]

Because it's not protecting us from shit (noone's attacking us overtly and we'll not stop the terrorists) and is only serving to make the rich richer... military industrial complex.

So we spend the money after we get attacked?:conf44:

[JMJ]

kansas governor kathleen sebelius ...
she gave the democratic response to shrub's state of the union address.
there's a buzz around her....

Those are bees.......JMJ

[dj-chefron]

I suppose you think a 57 Chevy is still an good economical option.
:rofl5:Good one,but when you spend more than all other countries combine something just aint kosher

[Steven Stewart]

:rofl5:Good one,but when you spend more than all other countries combine something just aint kosher

To whom more is given, more is required.:wink:

[Dolemite73]

What domestic needs? Universal health Care?

How about our infrastructure, to start? And yeah Universal Health care would be on the agenda as well.

[Armento]

So we spend the money after we get attacked?:conf44:
This is the paranoia that I can't agree with. NOONE will ever try to take over the USA. Those days are over.

Now whether or not we believe that the military should be used as a strategic arm of our foreign policy is something else to discuss and disagree with.

[Steven Stewart]

This is the paranoia that I can't agree with. NOONE will ever try to take over the USA. Those days are over.

.

And why prey tell Armen is that the case?

[Moksha]

So we spend the money after we get attacked?:conf44:

attacked by who? Canada?

[dj-chefron]

kansas governor kathleen sebelius ...
she gave the democratic response to shrub's state of the union address.
there's a buzz around her....


Governor Kathleen Sebelius Biography
Pledging independent leadership to move Kansas forward, in 2003 Kathleen Sebelius became the 44th Governor of the State of Kansas. Governor Sebelius was reelected to a second term in 2006.

At the heart of Governor Sebelius’ administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state’s renewable energy assets.

Through a commitment to making the state’s business climate more attractive – and by balancing the state budget without raising taxes – the Kansas economy has rebounded resulting in low unemployment and the creation of thousands of new jobs.

Because good schools equal good jobs and a growing economy, Governor Sebelius has made improving public education a priority. During her first term the state made a historic commitment to Kansas’ schoolchildren, and in her second term, Sebelius has strengthened that commitment, proposing significant funding increases for early childhood learning and pre-kindergarten programs.

Another responsibility is to keep Kansas communities safe. Governor Sebelius works closely with Kansas first responders and law enforcement to prepare for natural disasters and other emergencies. In order to enhance the safety and security of Kansas citizens, the Governor proposed the creation of five regional training centers for first responders and Kansas National Guard personnel.

Since the rising cost of health care is a threat to families and businesses, the Governor is working to ensure Kansans have access to quality and affordable health care. She’s also proposed providing health insurance to every uninsured Kansas child from birth to age five in order to give these children a healthy start on life.

Sebelius believes Kansas must take advantage of its enormous potential for renewable energy production. She’s working with business and community leaders, utilities, and local governments to promote wind energy and biofuels production in Kansas, as well as expanded energy efficiency and conservation efforts.

Governor Sebelius serves on the National Governors Association’s Executive Committee and is co-chair of the National Governors Association’s initiative, Securing a Clean Energy Future. Sebelius chairs the Education Commission of the States and as past chair of the Democratic Governors Association, she currently serves on the DGA Executive Committee.

Married to husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge, for 33 years, they have two sons: Ned and John. Both Sebelius boys are products of the Topeka public school system, pre-kindergarten through high school. Ned is a law student, and John is a graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design. Sebelius is the first daughter of a Governor (John Gilligan, Ohio, 1971-1975) in U.S. history to be elected to that same position.



Kathleen Sebelius - Brief Biography

(Suitable for introductions)

Pledging independent leadership to move Kansas forward, Kathleen Sebelius became the 44th Governor of the State of Kansas in 2003. She was reelected to a second term in 2006.

At the heart of Governor Sebelius’ administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state’s renewable energy assets.

Governor Sebelius serves on the National Governors Association’s Executive Committee and is co-chair of the National Governors Association’s initiative, Securing a Clean Energy Future. Sebelius chairs the Education Commission of the States and as past chair of the Democratic Governors Association, she currently serves on the DGA Executive Committee.

Married to husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge, for 33 years, they have two sons: Ned and John. Both Sebelius boys are products of the Topeka public school system, pre-kindergarten through high school. Ned is a law student, and John is a graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design. Sebelius is the first daughter of a Governor (John Gilligan, Ohio, 1971-1975) in U.S. history to be elected to that same position.Might be a good choice any other year but I dont think its her time now

[Armento]

And why prey tell Armen is that the case?
I just don't believe USA is at a threat from anyone and we should be moving towards the "put down the guns" way of living instead of armament races. USA being the beacon of freedom it should promote this instead of fucking people up when they don't listen. (p.s. i love it when you say my name like that)

[Chris Conrad]

How about our infrastructure, to start? And yeah Universal Health care would be on the agenda as well.

our infrastructure is the big hush hush topic...we cannot keep up with growing population demands and our roads and other structures are literally crumbling with no money to fix them. all the great engineering projects are happening overseas right now...folks need to go see what and how they build things in the middle east with all their oil money...our country is falling apart and nobody talks about it...

[Armento]

our infrastructure is the big hush hush topic...we cannot keep up with growing population demands and our roads and other structures are literally crumbling with no money to fix them. all the great engineering projects are happening overseas right now...folks need to go see what and how they build things in the middle east with all their oil money...our country is falling apart and nobody talks about it...
common, what about that really nice bridge in Alaska

[Moksha]

And why prey tell Armen is that the case?

geography and diplomacy

[dj-chefron]

common, what about that really nice bridge in AlaskaChris has a good point.Listening to McNutty the repup. line will be how are you going to pay for it.All we have to say is 2 trillion for Iraq infrastucture nothing for America.Game over

[Steven Stewart]

geography and diplomacy


I disagree, the reason is because of a strong National defense.

[Dolemite73]

I disagree, the reason is because of a strong National defense.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa128/NdaCut/worffrustrated.gif

You don't think we would be as strong with maybe 350 billion to 400 billion? Vice 600 billion not counting the cash going to Iraq? Think we could use 200 billion or so to fix some issues here going unfunded (NCLB, infrastructure, etc....)?

[ngeso]

And why prey tell Armen is that the case?



Steven, seriously, apart from Russia and China (*), which country or entity do you see that can attack U.S. territory militarily that is not hopelessly and exponentially outmatched?


...

[Armento]

Steven, seriously, apart from Russia and China (*), which country or entity do you see that can attack U.S. territory militarily that is not hopelessly and exponentially outmatched?


...
and nuclear power (mutual destruction) negates that threat

[Moksha]

I disagree, the reason is because of a strong National defense.

bullshit. Mexico doen't have a stong defense. nobody's attacking them. (Same can be said for tons of other countries.)

Who would attack the US anyway?

[Moksha]

Steven, seriously, apart from Russia and China (*), which country or entity do you see that can attack U.S. territory militarily that is not hopelessly and exponentially outmatched?
...

Neither of them would despite nuclear deterrents. Too many T Bills in their vaults.

[Steven Stewart]

You don't think we would be as strong with maybe 350 billion to 400 billion? Vice 600 billion not counting the cash going to Iraq? Think we could use 200 billion or so to fix some issues here going unfunded (NCLB, infrastructure, etc....)?

Here's the budget....make the cuts.
<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="96%"><caption class="agencytabletitle">Department of Defense
(In millions of dollars)

</caption> <colgroup> <col> <col align="right"> <col align="right"> <col align="right"> </colgroup> <thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" width="69%"> </th> <th rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" width="11%">2007
Actual</th> <th colspan="2" align="center">Estimate</th> </tr> <tr> <th align="center" width="10%">2008</th> <th align="center" width="10%">2009</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody valign="top"> <tr> <td align="left"> Spending </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Discretionary Budget Authority:</td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Military Personnel</td> <td align="right">110,407</td> <td align="right">116,476</td> <td align="right">125,247</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Operation and Maintenance</td> <td align="right">146,155</td> <td align="right">164,171</td> <td align="right">179,788</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Legislative proposal, Defense Health Enrollment Fees and
Deductible (non-add) </td> <td align="right">
—</td> <td align="right">
—</td> <td align="right">
−1,184 </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Procurement</td> <td align="right">83,820</td> <td align="right">98,985</td> <td align="right">104,216</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Research, Development, Test and Evaluation</td> <td align="right">75,893</td> <td align="right">76,537</td> <td align="right">79,616</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Military Construction</td> <td align="right">9,167</td> <td align="right">17,764</td> <td align="right">21,197</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Family Housing</td> <td align="right">4,004</td> <td align="right">2,866</td> <td align="right">3,203</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Revolving and Management Funds</td> <td align="right">2,281</td> <td align="right">2,691</td> <td align="right">2,173</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Subtotal, Discretionary budget authority</td> <td align="right">431,726</td> <td align="right">479,490</td> <td align="right">515,440</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Budget authority from enacted supplementals</td> <td align="right">169,215</td> <td align="right">86,721</td> <td align="right">—</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Additional funding requirements¹ </td> <td align="right">—</td> <td align="right">102,373</td> <td align="right">70,000</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Subtotal, Emergency discretionary budget authority</td> <td align="right">169,215</td> <td align="right">189,094</td> <td align="right">70,000</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Total, Discretionary budget authority </td> <td align="right">600,941</td> <td align="right">668,584</td> <td align="right">585,440</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Discretionary Outlays:</td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Base budget and enacted supplementals</td> <td align="right">527,951</td> <td align="right">554,637</td> <td align="right">610,594</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Additional funding requirements¹ </td> <td align="right">—</td> <td align="right">26,389</td> <td align="right">37,688</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Total, Discretionary outlays</td> <td align="right">527,951</td> <td align="right">581,026</td> <td align="right">648,282</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Mandatory Outlays</td> <td align="right">1,925</td> <td align="right">2,032</td> <td align="right">2,881</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Total, Outlays </td> <td align="right">529,876</td> <td align="right">583,058</td> <td align="right">651,163</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Credit activity </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> Total Direct Loan Disbursements, Family Housing Improvement</td> <td align="right">12</td> <td align="right">91</td> <td align="right">59</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> ¹Funding for the Global War on Terror, including the 2008 DOD request currently pending before the Congress and the 2009 allowance, which may not be limited to DOD.

<!-- end of page content -->

[Steven Stewart]

Steven, seriously, apart from Russia and China (*), which country or entity do you see that can attack U.S. territory militarily that is not hopelessly and exponentially outmatched?


...


This guy can put 1.5 Million soldiers on the ground.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/images/kim-jong-il_01.jpg

[ngeso]

This guy can put 1.5 Million soldiers on the ground.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/images/kim-jong-il_01.jpg




And they are going to swim to California?


...

[Steven Stewart]

And they are going to swim to California?


...

Man...this dude can almost hit the US with a Nuke. :stupid:

[Armento]

And they are going to swim to California?


...
there's a strong surf from Hawaii to here. surfs up dudes

[Armento]

Man...this dude can almost hit the US with a Nuke. :stupid:
If he hits a city in Cali with a nuke his whole country will be nuked. So he wouldn't do that.

Besides he already caved in, proving that he was just posturing for economic reasons.

[ngeso]

Man...this dude can almost hit the US with a Nuke. :stupid:



No he can't. Not even close. What he could MAYBE do in ten or twenty years time is hit Shanghai or Tokyo. THAT is his protection against a nuclear attack by the U.S., a scenario that is much more plausible.

Provided he can produce weapons grade plutonium eventually.


...

[Dolemite73]

If he hits a city in Cali with a nuke his whole country will be nuked. So he wouldn't do that.

Besides he already caved in, proving that he was just posturing for economic reasons.

Diplomacy......imagine that.....:conf44:

[Steven Stewart]

BRIBES.....imagine that.....:conf44:


FIXED

[Steven Stewart]

If he hits a city in Cali with a nuke his whole country will be nuked. So he wouldn't do that.



Now your contradicting yourself Armen. Earlier you spoke of putting the guns down. Now you abdicate retaliation....:conf06:

[Dolemite73]

FIXED

Bribes/diplomacy, who cares? Nary a shot was fired and we got what we wanted. What a concept. Sure, we need the stick part of diplomacy. But the carrot has a place as well.

[Steven Stewart]

Bribes/diplomacy, who cares? Nary a shot was fired and we got what we wanted. What a concept. Sure, we need the stick part of diplomacy. But the carrot has a place as well.


Hmmmph.. I suppose you support Pimps and prostitution as long as no shots get fired...:thumbsup:

[ngeso]

FIXED



Bribes, checkbook diplomacy, whatever works. North Korea retreat from nuclear weaponry research, there's a generous infusion of cash, some mutual trade deals signed, ten million people get food and a shot at the pursuit of life - win/win situation all round. Fifteen years down the road Kim dies in his sleep, next day they declare themselves a tiger state.

...

[Armento]

Now your contradicting yourself Armen. Earlier you spoke of putting the guns down. Now you abdicate retaliation....:conf06:
No I'm not. We have nukes. They're not going anywhere. Not in my wildest dreams do I think the world will get rid of its nukes.

Since they're here they're a very strong deterent.

[Dolemite73]

Hmmmph.. I suppose you support Pimps and prostitution as long as no shots get fired...:thumbsup:

Not fair and you know it. Apples and freakin oranges.

[Steven Stewart]

Bribes, checkbook diplomacy, whatever works. North Korea retreat from nuclear weaponry research, there's a generous infusion of cash, some mutual trade deals signed, ten million people get food and a shot at the pursuit of life - win/win situation all round. Fifteen years down the road Kim dies in his sleep, next day they declare themselves a tiger state.

...

I don't believe he will ever stop. That's his whole ability to extort funds from the US and others. In that game the minute someone thinks your sword is not sharp is when the game end.

[Steven Stewart]

Not fair and you know it. Apples and freakin oranges.


I'm joshing ya Dole, but pimpin is pimpin...:rofl5:

[ngeso]

I don't believe he will ever stop. That's his whole ability to extort funds from the US and others. In that game the minute someone thinks your sword is not sharp is when the game end.



Off course he's going to fucking extort funds from the US: He's got fifty nukes trained on his ass!!! The only way he can assert some sort of political sovereignty in that region is if he establishes the plausibility of a retaliatory scenario involving China and Russia !!! That is a can of whoop-ass you guys do not want to fuck with, HE knows that, so he is saying LAY OFF or PAY OFF!

Get it right!

...

[Steven Stewart]

Off course he's going to fucking extort funds from the US: He's got fifty nukes trained on his ass!!! The only way he can assert some sort of political sovereignty in that region is if he establishes the plausibility of a retaliatory scenario involving China and Russia !!! That is a can of whoop-ass you guys do not want to fuck with, HE knows that, so he is saying LAY OFF or PAY OFF!

Get it right!

...

Sorry Ngeso, I didn't think I needed to dig into the weeds. Thanks for making my point...:thumbsup:

[ngeso]

Sorry Ngeso, I didn't think I needed to dig into the weeds. Thanks for making my point...:thumbsup:



Nope. I didn't make your point, I made mine.

You, on the other hand, continue to buy into the WMD-bullshit fed to you by your leaders to justify exorbitant defence expenditure as a gross capitalist economic strategy at the expense of domestic interests (poverty, health care, education, environment, etc.) and under cynical approval of massive human collateral damage incurred through aggressive military actions against nations who are NOT able to present a retaliatory scenario! The reason you guys are in Iraq with 3000+ American and 600.000+ Iraqi casualties is because they did not have any means whatsoever to defend themselves. But you were lied to by the Bush administration that they did!

...

[ngeso]

In any other world the Bush administration would be hauled off to The Hague and charged with massive crimes against humanity.

Of course you guys never signed on for that one...

...

[Steven Stewart]

Nope. I didn't make your point, I made mine.

You, on the other hand, continue to buy into the WMD-bullshit fed to you by your leaders to justify exorbitant defence expenditure as a gross capitalist economic strategy at the expense of domestic interests (poverty, health care, education, environment, etc.) and under cynical approval of massive human collateral damage incurred through aggressive military actions against nations who are NOT able to present a retaliatory scenario! The reason you guys are in Iraq with 3000+ American and 600.000+ Iraqi casualties is because they did not have any means whatsoever to defend themselves. But you were lied to by the Bush administration that they did!

...


Man you don't what I have bought into. And tone it down...who the hell you think you yelling at.:biglaugha:

[ngeso]

Man you don't what I have bought into. And tone it down...who the hell you think you yelling at.:biglaugha:



Sorry man, I'm not yelling at you YOU, I'm just being passionate about the subject. It's a big issue for all of us, you guys are in the middle of a big, big election, and everyone else, myself included, is fairly exited about what the change is going to be, and where America is headed in terms of global security politics.

All good, and good debate. http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/small/s374.gif

...

[Steven Stewart]

It's all good Ng. Back to the topic....so if BO or HRC is elected and decides to cut military spending, how's that gonna play out?

[Armento]

It's all good Ng. Back to the topic....so if BO or HRC is elected and decides to cut military spending, how's that gonna play out?
has the defense budget ever been cut?

[Steven Stewart]

has the defense budget ever been cut?

History of U.S. Defense Funding:

From the end of the Second World War to the end of the Cold War, the United States spent most of its military budget engaging in a game of military build-up against the Soviet Union. The hightest expenses were during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and through most of the 1980s. During the Cold War the average military budget each year was 342.4 billion per year. [4] At the end of the 1980s the Soviet Union collapsed. This left the United States with a massive military buildup of weapons and an enormous defense industry, but without an enemy. Without a significant threat posed by an international power, defense spending steadily decreased from 1998-2001. Moderate increases in military expenditures occured from 1998-2001, but it was nothing significant. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 gave the U.S. a new enemy, so the government unleashed huse increases in military spending to fight the terrorist threat.

[dj-chefron]

has the defense budget ever been cut? Yes Bush 41 cut in 1991 due to the Soviet Union falling.Bill Clinton continue the cuts where if I remember correctly we were spending 200 million on defense

[Steven Stewart]

...so if BO or HRC is elected and decides to cut military spending, how's that gonna play out?

:conf44:

[dj-chefron]

They will have to frame the debate so the average American can understand it.Should we be spending our wealth to defend Exxon's right to amass obscene profits or take that same money and rebuild our infrastructure like the WPA did in the past.Should we rebuild and enrich haliburton the bridges of Iraq or the thousands of crumbling bridges that you have to drive over to go to work.Always bring the argument to Iraq and who profits from the occupation and what that money can do for your community.

[ngeso]

Love the signature.

[Moksha]

This guy can put 1.5 Million soldiers on the ground.



No he can't

Jesus, do you even read any analysis on North Korea??

[Steven Stewart]

They will have to frame the debate so the average American can understand it.Should we be spending our wealth to defend Exxon's right to amass obscene profits or take that same money and rebuild our infrastructure like the WPA did in the past.Should we rebuild and enrich haliburton the bridges of Iraq or the thousands of crumbling bridges that you have to drive over to go to work.Always bring the argument to Iraq and who profits from the occupation and what that money can do for your community.


Hmmm so this should be debated or is it a campaign issue.

[Steven Stewart]

No he can't

Jesus, do you even read any analysis on North Korea??

I do actually....

Military threat

The Korean People's Army is made up of 1.2 million troops, making it the fourth-largest military in the world. North Korea spends more than 30 per cent of its gross domestic product on its military. About 37,000 of those troops guard the demarcation line between the two Koreas.
When the CBC's Raymond Saint-Pierre visited Pyongyang in 2001, he said "thousands of soldiers swarm the city."
The country's largest industry is military production and it exports its ballistic military technology to such countries as Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt.
In January 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush named North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq.
In October 2002, North Korea revealed that it has an active nuclear program, in violation of a 1994 "agreed framework" with the U.S.
According to the agreement, the U.S. would provide North Korea with two nuclear power plants. In return, the Koreans said, they would stop work on nuclear weapons and allow UN weapons inspectors into the country. Both nations have accused the other of breaking the deal.
Bush called the revelation "troubling, sobering news," but in contrast to his policy on Iraq, he said he favoured a diplomatic solution to the situation.
In 2003, North Korea offered to freeze its nuclear weapons program if the U.S. removes it from a list of countries friendly to terrorists, lifts sanctions against the country and resumes shipments of oil and aid.
Besides North Korea's admission to having a nuclear weapons program, the U.S. believes the country has secret chemical and biological weapons programs.
In July 2006, North Korea conducted a series of missile tests, including a long-range Taepodong-2 that failed shortly after its launch. It was the first long-range missile launched by Pyongyang since the Taepodong-1 test in 1998. The North Korean Foreign Ministry said the tests were conducted to strengthen the country's self-defence capabilities and it declared its intention to carry out further tests. Japan threatened to impose economic sanctions against North Korea if it persisted with missile trials. The United States reached out to China and Russia in order to broker a multilateral diplomatic solution to the North Korean missile crisis.
In October 2006, the Communist regime said it tested a nuclear weapon in an underground site. The United States and Japan called for harsh and immediate sanctions from the UN Security Council.

[dj-chefron]

Hmmm so this should be debated or is it a campaign issue.Both we as a country need to have this debate.Ron Paul for all his faults frame it best we should not be an empire.As a campaign issue we will need someone who can articulate our needs for national defence thats why for VP we need a military man someone like a Eisenhower.

[Moksha]

I do actually....

Military threat

The Korean People's Army is made up of 1.2 million troops, making it the fourth-largest military in the world. North Korea spends more than 30 per cent of its gross domestic product on its military. About 37,000 of those troops guard the demarcation line between the two Koreas.
When the CBC's Raymond Saint-Pierre visited Pyongyang in 2001, he said "thousands of soldiers swarm the city."
The country's largest industry is military production and it exports its ballistic military technology to such countries as Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt.
In January 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush named North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq.
In October 2002, North Korea revealed that it has an active nuclear program, in violation of a 1994 "agreed framework" with the U.S.
According to the agreement, the U.S. would provide North Korea with two nuclear power plants. In return, the Koreans said, they would stop work on nuclear weapons and allow UN weapons inspectors into the country. Both nations have accused the other of breaking the deal.
Bush called the revelation "troubling, sobering news," but in contrast to his policy on Iraq, he said he favoured a diplomatic solution to the situation.
In 2003, North Korea offered to freeze its nuclear weapons program if the U.S. removes it from a list of countries friendly to terrorists, lifts sanctions against the country and resumes shipments of oil and aid.
Besides North Korea's admission to having a nuclear weapons program, the U.S. believes the country has secret chemical and biological weapons programs.
In July 2006, North Korea conducted a series of missile tests, including a long-range Taepodong-2 that failed shortly after its launch. It was the first long-range missile launched by Pyongyang since the Taepodong-1 test in 1998. The North Korean Foreign Ministry said the tests were conducted to strengthen the country's self-defence capabilities and it declared its intention to carry out further tests. Japan threatened to impose economic sanctions against North Korea if it persisted with missile trials. The United States reached out to China and Russia in order to broker a multilateral diplomatic solution to the North Korean missile crisis.
In October 2006, the Communist regime said it tested a nuclear weapon in an underground site. The United States and Japan called for harsh and immediate sanctions from the UN Security Council.

Hahaha.... just as I thought.

[Chris Conrad]

I do actually....

Military threat

The Korean People's Army is made up of 1.2 million troops, making it the fourth-largest military in the world. North Korea spends more than 30 per cent of its gross domestic product on its military. About 37,000 of those troops guard the demarcation line between the two Koreas.
When the CBC's Raymond Saint-Pierre visited Pyongyang in 2001, he said "thousands of soldiers swarm the city."
The country's largest industry is military production and it exports its ballistic military technology to such countries as Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt.
In January 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush named North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq.
In October 2002, North Korea revealed that it has an active nuclear program, in violation of a 1994 "agreed framework" with the U.S.
According to the agreement, the U.S. would provide North Korea with two nuclear power plants. In return, the Koreans said, they would stop work on nuclear weapons and allow UN weapons inspectors into the country. Both nations have accused the other of breaking the deal.
Bush called the revelation "troubling, sobering news," but in contrast to his policy on Iraq, he said he favoured a diplomatic solution to the situation.
In 2003, North Korea offered to freeze its nuclear weapons program if the U.S. removes it from a list of countries friendly to terrorists, lifts sanctions against the country and resumes shipments of oil and aid.
Besides North Korea's admission to having a nuclear weapons program, the U.S. believes the country has secret chemical and biological weapons programs.
In July 2006, North Korea conducted a series of missile tests, including a long-range Taepodong-2 that failed shortly after its launch. It was the first long-range missile launched by Pyongyang since the Taepodong-1 test in 1998. The North Korean Foreign Ministry said the tests were conducted to strengthen the country's self-defence capabilities and it declared its intention to carry out further tests. Japan threatened to impose economic sanctions against North Korea if it persisted with missile trials. The United States reached out to China and Russia in order to broker a multilateral diplomatic solution to the North Korean missile crisis.
In October 2006, the Communist regime said it tested a nuclear weapon in an underground site. The United States and Japan called for harsh and immediate sanctions from the UN Security Council.

and how the f*ck are they going to get here?

[Steven Stewart]

and how the f*ck are they going to get here?


Well the war scenario never discussed this. It was always believed that the fight would be in South Korea. It's never an attack on America, but America's interests. But they do have a Navy and an Air force.

[ngeso]

and how the f*ck are they going to get here?


http://www.cheynehoran.com.au/japanesegroup.jpg

[ngeso]

Well the war scenario never discussed this. It was always believed that the fight would be in South Korea. It's never an attack on America, but America's interests. But they do have a Navy and an Air force.


And China is going play along with this idea? (BTW, what happened to nuking the American mainland?)

...

[Steven Stewart]

And China is going play along with this idea? (BTW, what happened to nuking the American mainland?)

...

China's gonna play one way or the other. As far as nukes, depending on who you believe, it will take 5-10 years to hit Hawaii or Alaska.

[Moksha]

China's gonna play one way or the other. As far as nukes, depending on who you believe, it will take 5-10 years to hit Hawaii or Alaska.

oh my god... it just gets better and better.

you obviously know NOTHING about the N Korean military. Please STFU.

[ngeso]

China's gonna play one way or the other. As far as nukes, depending on who you believe, it will take 5-10 years to hit Hawaii or Alaska.


China is not going to play, China is going to determine all terms of engagement in that region. Read this sentence in your North Korean military report again:

"The United States reached out to China and Russia in order to broker a multilateral diplomatic solution to the North Korean missile crisis."

Translation: the U.S. can't act unilaterally in the area, as China and Russia, immediate neighbours, pretty much call the shots up there.

...

[Steven Stewart]

China is not going to play, China is going to determine all terms of engagement in that region. Read this sentence in your North Korean military report again:

"The United States reached out to China and Russia in order to broker a multilateral diplomatic solution to the North Korean missile crisis."

Translation: the U.S. can't act unilaterally in the area, as China and Russia, immediate neighbours, pretty much call the shots up there.

...

I'm not sure can't is the right word. I think the PREFERENCE is to deal unilaterally.

[Steven Stewart]

oh my god... it just gets better and better.

you obviously know NOTHING about the N Korean military. Please STFU.

Unless you can contribute with other data, you shut your Treehuggin ass up.

[Moksha]

Unless you can contribute with other data, you shut your Treehuggin ass up.

Dude... most of the N Korean army is on the brink of starving. Only the elite soldiers even get fed or paid. Go read some interviews with defected soldiers. Go read some analyses of the condition of their Air Force's equipment.

God, even hawkish necons like Robert Kaplan don't take the N Korean military seriously.

[Steven Stewart]

Dude... most of the N Korean army is on the brink of starving. Only the elite soldiers even get fed or paid. Go read some interviews with defected soldiers. Go read some analyses of the condition of their Air Force's equipment.

God, even hawkish necons like Robert Kaplan don't take the N Korean military seriously.

That may be the case today. I for one wouldn't wanna deal with a starving soldier in combat. I also don't trust China and where their interest is.

[ngeso]

I'm not sure can't is the right word. I think the PREFERENCE is to deal unilaterally.


And it does not impress itself on you that when Russian Oscar Class GM-submarines are prowling 50 miles off Long Island, and 36 or so Chinese ICBMs are pointing squarely at L.A., Houston and Kansas City, that "preference" to act unilaterally is in essence a delusion?


...

[Steven Stewart]

And it does not impress itself on you that when Russian Oscar Class GM-submarines are prowling 50 miles off Long Island, and 36 or so Chinese ICBMs are pointing squarely at L.A., Houston and Kansas City, that "preference" to act unilaterally is in essence a delusion?


...

Fair enough, either way it's best to bring all to the table to share the bribe...err I mean diplomacy.

[ngeso]

That may be the case today. I for one wouldn't wanna deal with a starving soldier in combat. I also don't trust China and where their interest is.


China's interest is to stay in business and become the world's dominant economy and culture in the very foreseeable future. A war on the Korean peninsula is not scheduled in that plan.

...

[Steven Stewart]

China's interest is to stay in business and become the world's dominant economy and culture in the very foreseeable future. A war on the Korean peninsula is not scheduled in that plan.

...

That's true so, you think their sending business to North Korea to keep him quiet?

[dj-chefron]

Here is a essay on whe topic
Often what is hidden in our world is so simply because no cares or thinks to look. Yes, a fair amount of attention has recently been given to the staggering new Pentagon budget request, the largest since World War II, that the Bush administration has just submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2009. It comes in at $515.4 billion – a 7.5 percent hike for an already bloated Pentagon – and that doesn't include all sorts of Defense Department funds that will be stowed away elsewhere (even if in plain sight), nor does it include the couple of hundred billion dollars or more in funds to be appropriated largely via "supplemental" requests for the ongoing military disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the official budget, however, includes staggering sums for procuring major new weapons systems and for R&D leading to ever more such big-ticket items in the future. According to Steve Kosiak, vice president of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, "The fiscal year 2009 budget may be about as good as it gets for defense contractors." When all is said and done, this will probably be a trillion dollar "defense" budget.

As it happens, military budgets like this have a multiplier effect globally. After all, there's no such thing as a one-nation arms race. It's just that no one here thinking about what we're about to feed the Pentagon pays much attention to such things. Fortunately, John Feffer, an expert on military policy and Asia, has been doing just that. He is the co-director of a particularly interesting Web site, Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, with which TomDispatch hopes to collaborate on projects in the future. (To subscribe to FPIF's e-news service, click here.) In the following piece, he brings genuine arms-race news to all of us. Yes, Virginia, there is indeed an arms race underway; it's taking off in Northeast Asia; and it's dangerous. Tom

Asia's Hidden Arms Race

Six countries talk peace while preparing for war
by John Feffer

Read all about it! Diplomats remain upbeat about solving the nuclear standoff with North Korea; optimists envision a peace treaty to replace the armistice that halted, but failed to formally end, the Korean War 55 years ago. Some leaders and scholars are even urging the transformation of the Six Party Talks over the Korean nuclear issue, involving the United States, Japan, China, Russia, and the two Koreas, into a permanent peace structure in Northeast Asia.

The countries in the region all seem determined to make nice right now. Yasuo Fukuda, the new Japanese prime minister, is considerably more pacific than his predecessor, the ultra-nationalist Shinzo Abe. The new South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, despite his conservative credentials, is committed to continuing the previous president's engagement policy with North Korea and plans to reach out to Japan via his first post-inaugural state visit. The party that won the recent Taiwanese parliamentary elections, the Kuomintang, wants to rebuild bridges to the Mainland and, when it comes to the Communist Party there, mend fences the ruling Democratic Progressive Party tried to pull down. Beijing, for its part, is being super-conciliatory toward practically everyone in this Olympic year.

Despite all this peace-talk, something else, quite momentous and hardly noticed, is underway in the region. The real money in Northeast Asia is going elsewhere. While in the news sunshine prevails, in the shadows an already massive regional arms race is threatening to shift into overdrive. Since the dawn of the 21st century, five of the six countries involved in the Six Party Talks have increased their military spending by 50 percent or more. The sixth, Japan, has maintained a steady, if sizable military budget while nonetheless aspiring to keep pace. Every country in the region is now eagerly investing staggering amounts of money in new weapons systems and new offensive capabilities.

The arms race in Northeast Asia undercuts all talk of peace in the region. It also sustains a growing global military-industrial complex. Northeast Asia is where four of the world's largest militaries – those of the United States, China, Russia, and Japan – confront each other. Together, the countries participating in the Six Party Talks account for approximately 65 percent of world military expenditures, with the United States responsible for roughly half the global total.

Here is the real news that should hit the front pages of papers today: Wars grip Iraq, Afghanistan, and large swathes of Africa, but the heart of the global military-industrial complex lies in Northeast Asia. Any attempt to drive a stake through this potentially destabilizing monster must start with the militaries that face one another there.


The Japanese Reversal

The Northeast Asian arms buildup – a three-tiered scramble to dominate the seas, beef up air forces, and control the next frontier of space – runs counter to conventional wisdom. After all, isn't Japan still operating under a "peace constitution"? Hasn't South Korea committed to the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula? Didn't China recently wake up to the virtues of soft power? And how could North Korea and Russia, both of which suffered disastrous economic reversals in the 1990s, have had the wherewithal to compete in an arms race? As it turns out, these obstacles have proved little more than speed bumps on the road to regional hyper-militarism.

Perhaps the most paradoxical participant in this new arms race is Japan. Its famous peace constitution has traditionally been one of the few brakes on arms spending in the region. The country has long limited its military expenditures to an informal ceiling of 1 percent of its overall budget. As that budget grew, however, so did military spending. Japan's army is now larger than Britain's, and the country spends more on its military than all but four other nations. (China surpassed Japan in military spending for the first time in 2006.) Nonetheless, for decades, the provisions of its peace constitution at least put limits on the offensive capabilities of the Japanese military, which is still referred to as its Self-Defense Forces.

These days, however, even the definition of "offensive" is changing. In 1999, the country's Self-Defense Forces first used offensive force when its naval vessels fired on suspected North Korean spy ships. Less than a decade later, Japan provides support far from its "defensive" zone for U.S. wars, including providing fuel to coalition forces in Afghanistan and transport in Iraq.

Japan was once incapable of bombing other countries largely because its air force didn't have an in-air refueling capability. Thanks to Boeing, however, the first KC-767 tanker aircraft will arrive in Japan later this year, providing government officials, who occasionally assert the country's right to launch preemptive strikes, with the means to do so. This is not happy news for Japan's neighbors, who retain vivid memories of the 1930s and 1940s, when its military went on an imperial rampage throughout the region.

Tokyo already has among the best air forces and naval fighting forces in the world, trailing only the United States. But leading Japanese officials have displayed an even larger appetite. Some Japanese politicians are lobbying to amend the peace constitution or even scrap it entirely, while sending military spending skyrocketing. To promote these ideas, they use the thin rationale that Japan should be participating regularly in "international peacekeeping missions."

The Japanese Defense Agency – their Pentagon – which was upgraded to ministry level last year, wants more goodies like an aircraft carrier, nuclear-powered submarines, and long-range missiles. A light aircraft carrier, which the government has coyly labeled a "destroyer," will be ready in 2009. The subs and missiles, however, will have to wait. So, too, will Tokyo's attempt to take a quantum leap forward in air-fighting capabilities by importing advanced U.S. F-22 stealth planes. Concerned about releasing latest-generation technology to the outside world, Congress scotched this deal at the last moment in August 2007.

Washington has been a good deal more accommodating when it comes to missile defense. Japan has been a far more enthusiastic supporter of missile defense than any of America's European allies. In fact, the United States and Japan are spending billions of dollars to set up an early-warning-and-response prototype of such an advanced missile system. Part of this missile shield is land-based. Last month, Japan installed its third Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) surface-to-air interceptor and plans on nine more by 2011. The more ambitious part of the program, however, is based at sea. In December, Japan conducted its first sea-based interceptor test.

With Japan and the United States in the lead, a space race is also on in Northeast Asia. Last year, China tested its own anti-ballistic missile system by shooting down one of its old weather satellites. While at present this is far from an actual missile-defense system, China effectively served notice that it is up to the technological challenge of hitting a bullet with a bullet in space. Meanwhile, thanks to U.S. pressure Russia too is upgrading its missile defense systems, while pouring money into the development of new missiles that can bypass any putative shield the U.S. and its allies can develop.

Give Me Peace, but Not Just Yet

The two most recent South Korean presidents, Nobel Peace Prize winner Kim Dae-Jung and the left-leaning Roh Moo-Hyun, have been well-known for their efforts to foster reconciliation with North Korea. Less well-known have been their programs to beef up South Korea's military. The dark side of their engagement policy has been its unstated quid pro quo of satisfying the security concerns of South Korean hawks by giving their military everything it wants – and then some. Between 1999 and 2006, South Korean military spending jumped more than 70 percent. In 2007, at the launching ceremony for a new Aegis-equipped destroyer, which brought South Korea into an elite club of just five countries with such technology, President Roh Moo-Hyun declared, "At the present time, Northeast Asia is still in an arms race, and we cannot just sit back and watch." By 2020, the South Korean navy wants to build three more Aegis destroyers at a cost of $1 billion each.

South Korean hawks are not only responding to concerns about North Korea, the traditional threat around which the South has organized its military. They are concerned about a declining military commitment from the United States, which has reduced the levels of American troops that traditionally garrison the country and pushed hard for greater military "burden-sharing."

South Korea's leaders and military officials are anxious that the Pentagon may continue to focus on the Middle East and Central Asia to the exclusion of its Pacific commitments. To prepare for the contingency of going it alone, South Korea has embarked on an ambitious $665 billion Defense Reform 2020 initiative, which will increase the military budget by roughly 10 percent a year until 2020. In those years, while troop levels will actually fall, most of the extra money will go to a host of expensive, high-tech systems such as new F-15K fighters from Boeing, SM-6 ship-to-air missiles that can form a low-altitude missile shield, and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles.

If South Korea's spending spree remains largely under the radar, China's military expenditures have received considerable media scrutiny. Newspaper accounts have focused on China's military spending, which officially rose to $45 billion for 2007. However, that public figure, according to U.S. intelligence estimates, tells only half the story. Beijing's spending, claim these sources, is really in the $100 billion range. With this money, China is pushing forward with an ambitious naval program that will include the addition to its naval forces of five new nuclear-powered attack subs, a mid-sized aircraft carrier, and – clandestinely – the supposed construction of a huge 93,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier by 2020.

Lost in the hype around China's apparent quest for a world-class military to match its world-class economy are the gaps in the country's offensive capabilities. It has only a couple of hundred nuclear weapons and fewer than two dozen ICBMs pointed at the United States. Its navy doesn't have a "blue-water" capability, lacking (as yet) any aircraft carriers, a large force of nuclear-powered submarines, and the overseas basing infrastructure to support them. It relies heavily on imports and can't yet build the sort of aircraft that would allow it to project serious force over large distances.

China, however, has been the only modestly credible threat on the horizon that the Pentagon has been able to wield to justify military spending at levels not seen since World War II. The Pentagon can't use its big naval destroyers against al-Qaeda; Virginia-class subs can't do much to fight the Taliban or insurgents in Iraq. Yet these systems figure prominently in the Pentagon's long-range plans to build a 313-ship navy. Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.), who made headlines back in 2005 with his newfound opposition to the Iraq War, is typical of congressional hawks when he warns of the need to prepare for a coming conflict with China. "We've got to be able to have a military that can deploy to stop China or Russia or any other country that challenges us," he recently told Reuters. "I've felt we had to be concerned about the direction China was going." To counter China, the United States has pursued a classic containment strategy of strengthening military ties with India, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan.

The Bush administration trumpets its accomplishment of increasing military spending 74 percent since 2001. In addition to the $12.7 billion for new warships, there's $17 billion for new aircraft and over $10 billion for missile defense. The administration wants to increase the Army from 482,400 to 547,400 troops by 2012. A sizable portion of the administration's $607 billion Pentagon budget request for 2009, which doesn't even include massive supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will go to maintaining and expanding the U.S. military presence in the Pacific. The Democratic front-runners for the presidential nomination have also called for troop increases and have said nothing about slowing, freezing, or even cutting the military budget. No matter who is elected, under the next administration, as under the last one, the United States will surely continue to be the chief driver of global arms spending.

The Armies of Austerity

Increased military spending is not always just a function of affluence. As the Russian economy contracted in the 1990s, the arms export industry became an ever more critical way for the faltering country to earn hard currency. Today, flush with oil and natural gas revenues, Russia has regained its place as the world's second largest arms dealer by almost doubling its arms exports since 2000. Washington's moves to establish a global missile defense system and encroach on Russian interests in Central Asia have only encouraged Moscow to boost its military spending in an effort to recover its lost superpower status.

With the renewed growth of the Russian economy on the strength of energy sales, Russian arms expenditures began to take off again in the new millennium, increasing nearly fourfold between 2000 and 2006. The Russian government, which projected a 29 percent increase in spending for 2007, plans to replace nearly half its arsenal with new weaponry by 2015.

Compared to Russia, North Korea has had the full experience of economic collapse with very little subsequent recovery. Yet, despite its woefully limited means, it has tried to keep up with the great powers that surround it. By many estimates, Pyongyang devotes as much as a quarter of its budget to the military (even though prosperous South Korea still spends as much, or more, on its military than the North's entire gross domestic product). North Korea's failure to match the conventional military spending of South Korea, much less Japan or the United States, was what made the building of a "nuclear deterrent" increasingly attractive to its leaders. In other words, the current nuclear crisis that sucks up so much diplomatic attention in Northeast Asia today is at least partly a result of the region's accelerating conventional arms race and North Korea's inability to keep pace.

Critics of the North Korean regime often point out that its military spending is ultimately a human rights violation, because the government essentially takes food out of the mouths of its people to spend on armaments. North Korea is, however, just a particularly gross example of an expanding global problem. Each of the six countries in the new Pacific arms race has devised a wealth of rationales for its military spending – and each has ignored significant domestic needs in the process.

Given the sums that would be necessary to address the decommissioning of nuclear weapons, the looming crisis of climate change, and the destabilizing gap between rich and poor, such spending priorities are in themselves a threat to humanity. The world put 37 percent more into military spending in 2006 than in 1997. If the "peace dividend" that was to follow the end of the Cold War never quite appeared, a decade later the world finds itself burdened with quite the opposite: a genuine peace deficit.

[ngeso]

That's true so, you think their sending business to North Korea to keep him quiet?


Is this a trick question?

...

[Moksha]

I also don't trust China and where their interest is.

Their interest is in protecting their bank account. 70% of their foreign holdings is held in US dollars - well over a trillion in T bills.

[Moksha]

nm

[Steven Stewart]

Is this a trick question?

...

No, but how do they keep North Korea in line? What's to stop KJI from testing again?

[Armento]

And it does not impress itself on you that when Russian Oscar Class GM-submarines are prowling 50 miles off Long Island, and 36 or so Chinese ICBMs are pointing squarely at L.A., Houston and Kansas City, that "preference" to act unilaterally is in essence a delusion?


...
THEY WHAT??? Can the tovarishes pick my ass up?

[ngeso]

No, but how do they keep North Korea in line? What's to stop KJI from testing again?


Again, diplomacy and economic alternatives. China is NK's biggest trade partner and food donor.

...

[mhd]

Again, diplomacy and economic alternatives. China is NK's biggest trade partner and food donor.

...

for emphasis: FOOD DONOR

[ngeso]

Here is a essay on whe topic



Informative and disturbing read. Makes sense though.

...