Israeli and US troops gear up

[Stellar]

JERUSALEM — The Israeli military is gearing up together with U.S. forces for a major missile defense exercise, the Israeli military announced Thursday, as tension between Iran and the international community escalates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/israeli-and-us-troops-gear-up-for-major-missile-defense-drill-after-iran-maneuvers/2012/01/05/gIQAE0QqcP_story.html

[George Ford]

Only a matter of time before a war starts. Really hope they find a peaceful fair solution.

[ninjadude]

Only a matter of time before a war starts. Really hope they find a peaceful fair solution.

Maybe you and the OP missed the part where it said the exercise was planned LONG AGO. There is no inevitability to war with Iran and if you mean peaceful solution to Iran having a nuclear weapon, there seems to be little evidence of that, and why not whine about ISRAEL's nuclear weapons. They don't exist in a vacuum. ISRAEL does not allow International weapons inspectors to see it's nuclear weapons. All this hoopla about Iran is so that the military industrial complex can soak the American public for more money we DONT HAVE. Cut defense first then we can talk about social programs. The US spends more on the military than all other nations on earth. Combined.

[Stellar]

Maybe you and the OP missed the part where it said the exercise was planned LONG AGO. There is no inevitability to war with Iran and if you mean peaceful solution to Iran having a nuclear weapon, there seems to be little evidence of that, and why not whine about ISRAEL's nuclear weapons. They don't exist in a vacuum. ISRAEL does not allow International weapons inspectors to see it's nuclear weapons. All this hoopla about Iran is so that the military industrial complex can soak the American public for more money we DONT HAVE. Cut defense first then we can talk about social programs. The US spends more on the military than all other nations on earth. Combined.

More than all other nations on Earth, combined? I call bs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[ROGER]

I didnt do the Math! But we do spend to much.

[+and-then]

I'm glad to see them training together. Makes both armies more capable. I don't think Iran will risk openly attacking Israel because they have surrogate stooges to bleed and die for them - Hamas,Hezbollah and probably a dozen smaller splinter crazies. If Israel is attacked from multiple fronts or with unconventional weapons then I expect a brief and VERY BRUTAL conflict to ensue. Nothing like 2006 Lebanon or Cast Lead. It will be gloves off and decisive. Which is to say massive civilian casualties. After the Goldstone report fiasco they have nothing to lose. Hasbara hasn't been their strong suit lately. So be it.

[RobertoIlias]

here we go. Another war this time with Iran who hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years.

ron paul 2012

[ninjadude]

More than all other nations on Earth, combined? I call bs.

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

You're right. But it's close. And there's no reason for it to be that high.

[Stellar]

You're right. But it's close. And there's no reason for it to be that high.

If you look at the & of GDP that they're spending on it, its pretty average.

[ninjadude]

If you look at the & of GDP that they're spending on it, its pretty average.

Explain to me why that's important?

[Stellar]

Its important because a more wealthy country naturally has more money that it can spend.

[Drayno]

Israel has a very capable military - especially Air Force.

The U.S. has a great military - and as with two great forces, when both work together, they learn much from each other. And in the long run; especially in protecting the country, it is beneficial for countries to share knowledge with one another - whether intellectually or militaristically.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Drayno

[ninjadude]

Its important because a more wealthy country naturally has more money that it can spend.

Ahh. I guess that means no valid reason. Like actual threats.

[Stellar]

Ahh. I guess that means no valid reason. Like actual threats.

Well, no actual threat doesnt mean that one should not have a military either. The whole idea of having a military as a defence force hinges (or rather, should hinge) on being pro-active and not re-active. At all levels within war fighting, the one who gains and maintains the initiative sets the pace of the war and will have the advantage. Hence, even if there is no actual threat, it is advisable to still have a military force in order to be ready for any potential future threats. If you only build up a military when you notice a threat, you'll already be at the disadvantage.

[+and-then]

Ahh. I guess that means no valid reason. Like actual threats.

That's your judgement. Most Americans disagree, thankfully. The point being made ( I think) is that America spends not much more as a % of GDP than other countries spend. Pretty impressive since we also act as security for Europe, Asia(the free part) and the Middle East. We are beginning to reduce our spending and all the above mentioned will soon begin to see how much a service we've been to them. Europe especially will be hit hard when we seriously draw down our presence.

Some people don't understand the benefit of the US being a stabilising influence in the world but it will soon begin to occur even to the dullest among our detractors that a strong America has actually been beneficial to the world.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Its important because a more wealthy country naturally has more money that it can spend.

If that's so, then how come America is in the middle of a finacial crisis that's engulfing the world and sending us all up **** creek?

[Stellar]

If that's so, then how come America is in the middle of a finacial crisis that's engulfing the world and sending us all up **** creek?

Because while America is wealthy in terms of a large GDP, it seems to spend even more than it makes. Nevertheless, the military spending, as a % of GDP, is on par with most other military powers in the world.

[ninjadude]

Well, no actual threat doesnt mean that one should not have a military either.

Thanks for the history lesson but I didn't say that we should not have one. But that we spend nearly as much on defense all other nations combined. It's has no purpose.

[ninjadude]

The point being made ( I think) is that America spends not much more as a % of GDP than other countries spend. Pretty impressive

Who cares? it's not a race or contest to be the biggest.

[ninjadude]

Because while America is wealthy in terms of a large GDP, it seems to spend even more than it makes. Nevertheless, the military spending, as a % of GDP, is on par with most other military powers in the world.

And as an argument is not relevant.

[Stellar]

Who cares? it's not a race or contest to be the biggest.

Which is why the %GDP isnt the biggest.

You're advocating that the absolute military expenditure in the US is too large and should be reduced... I disagree. I think that reducing it from 4.6% (I think thats where its at) to 0.6%, as an example, would not significantly help the US, but rather would hurt it.

[ninjadude]

You're advocating that the absolute military expenditure in the US is too large and should be reduced... I disagree. I think that reducing it from 4.6% (I think thats where its at) to 0.6%, as an example, would not significantly help the US, but rather would hurt it.

OK I'll play along. Why? Why would it hurt it. Because reducing it as a percentage of GDP doesn't seem to have any relationship to the level of military spending but merely a interesting relationship.

[+and-then]

Expressing defense expenditures as a % of GDP is just a tool of comparison. Each nation has to determine for itself what level of spending is required for it's security. America has taken on the responsibility for helping to secure Europe and parts of Asia arguably because it is necessary for our own defense. You obviously think America spends too much so you'll be happy to learn that we are in process of cutting about $500 billion from the budget with an additional 500 billion being slashed due to the sequestration clause in the budget fight last summer. Most non partisan types agree that a trillion dollar reduction, even spaced out over a decade, is too much to safely cut. Frankly I don't understand what your fascination with % GDP has to do with the real world. The cuts I've mentioned will mean severe reductions in troop strength, ships and aircraft purchased and deployed, weapon systems being killed that would continue to give us a qualitative edge. Some cuts are always necessary but the lefties would gut the defense of our country with NO qualms at all. America has real enemies in the world and we'd do well to remember that while we are dismantling our defense.