Open Sources

7 Responses

• Comments 7
• Pingbacks 0

1. Have you ever noticed how North Korea, which spends one-third of its national income on its military while children literally starve in the streets, is never the object of leftist cliches about the military-industrial complex?

   Of course not! The brave and misunderstood North Korean government gets major kudos for stickin’ it to the evil American imperialist bastards with their well-fed children, their economic prosperity, their freedoms…It really doesn’t matter how badly North Korea mistreats its gays, spouts racist diatribes, represses unions and workers, builds nuclear bombs, or curtails all civil liberties, so long as they are flipping the bird to the US, they are a-okay in some folks’ books.

2. I’m not sure I understand the question. As far as I know, the complaints of the military-industrial complex are definitely legitimate and definitely refer to how America spends its money on the military, not how North Korea does. Do you mean that all of our military installments are necessary to counter or deter North Korea? Or do you mean that while complaining of the military-industrial complex of America, so called leftists don’t mention the more out of control style employed by North Korea? Because that is an entirely different complaint requiring an entirely different library of calls for action on a different front.

3. >> Have you ever noticed how North Korea, which spends one-third of its national income on its military while children literally starve in the streets, is never the object of leftist cliches about the military-industrial complex?

   Yes!! I thought it was just me. I live near Berkeley, which has groups like Food Not Bombs. Nice idea, but if they had any shred of credibility, they would be screaming bloody murder about the KJI regime, long before criticizing America.

   @colin
   I think the complaints were more legit back when Ike gave his speech. Back then, defense spending was 10% of GDP. That was down from WW2, where it was about 20%. Even after Reagan did his huge defense spending increases, it was down to 7-8%. By 2000, it was probably less than 5%. I’m sure it’s gone up a bit since then. I think 5% of GDP on defense spending does not represent a nation whose military-industrial complex has it by the throat. By contrast, American consumer spending account for a whopping 70% of the economy. This nation is run by its consumers, not the military.

   And North Korea? I’ve seen estimates of 25-33%(!) of GDP on the military. This while its people starve or suffer from chronic malnutrition. I don’t see why leftists can’t be outraged by that. They should be.

4. The US spends about 4 percent of its GDP on the military. It makes up 23 percent of the Federal budget, so while it might not be accurate to say that overall economy is dominated by military spending, I’m not so sure we can say the same about the government itself and influence by the military-industrial complex.

   I’m certainly in favor of a strong military, but I do wonder if we’re getting enough bang for our buck: perhaps we can spend fewer bucks and get the same bang some other way. I also wonder if political concerns aren’t keeping alive or killing the right things. It would be a shame, for example, to kill the C-17, which is capable of carrying a lot of personnel, equipment, or humanitarian aid and landing it on a very short runway.

5. I believe in a strong military industral complex for America, maybe we can do more with less, but I don’t mind spending a lot of money on it. It should be one of the U.S. governments top priorities. With China(we should really stop threating them like friends and break free from their control) and terrorism we need a strong military that can beat anyone. Our markets need to be freer and deregulated so people can take care of themselves. The problem with North Korea is that the government controls or is in charge of everything.

6. DC, you and I apparently have similar goal, but I don’t think a strong military-industrial complex — with its political power and temptation to fill its own coffers above all else — necessarily equates with a strong military. In fact, I think in some cases a case can be made for the exact opposite.

7. North Korea dominated the intimate dinner that Mr. Obama held for Mr. Hu on Tuesday, the official said. Mr. Obama focused on the North’s recently disclosed uranium-enrichment plant, saying that it was one part of a three-pronged threat to the United States that included the North’s production of plutonium bombs and development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

   That is an encouraging note.

   One point: The article did not specify what the US meant by saying it is considering repositioning forces in Asia if China does not change North Korea’s habits…

   For those not familiar with Korea, you’d probably immediately think it means beefing up US troops in South Korea. But, people familiar with Korea would consider that at least some in North Korea’s regime are not thrilled at the idea of the US withdrawing forces from the South, because they fear (perhaps rightly) that it would make it much easier for the US to use a limited strike against its nuclear facilities, because it would be harder for NK to kill GIs in immediate retaliation.

   If Obama suggested to China that the US would have to consider removing all US troops from South Korea if China did not put effective pressure on the North, I would think his team is on the ball and that the North is a big priority with him.

   Such a policy would not come without trouble: the South and Japan might not be happy about US troops being used as a political pawn like that and would not like to see the policy actually carried out. But, Obama talking to China in this way would show good depth of understanding of the dynamics of the situation — and would impress on China that the US is (more) serious about the situation in East Asia than they might have been considering the last couple of years.