A color-coded world for military spending (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:43 pm

Here it is. Pretty interesting, really. For sheer numbers, the US has 'em all beat (though I'll bet at least a few numbers, such as China's, might be fudged). Still, if you look at GDP, another picture arises. Take a glance at the MidEast! There's a lot of bombs, tankware, bullets and aircraft sitting around the old stomping grounds of so many religions. Doesn't look like any of that is going to change, soon.

Your thoughts, on topic, please.

Pekka · Post by **Pekka** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:19 am

The Israeli-Palestinian confrontation has been festering for so long, it seems like a thousand years. Politicians would be the first to admit that the only possible resolution of the conflict is total annihilation/subjugation of one of the parties involved. But of course, they cannot afford to voice that, so they continue mumbling about "road charts", peace plans and crap like that. They score political points and earn a Nobel peace prize once in a while - a handy little bonus.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:46 am

Pekka wrote:The Israeli-Palestinian confrontation has been festering for so long, it seems like a thousand years. Politicians would be the first to admit that the only possible resolution of the conflict is total annihilation/subjugation of one of the parties involved. But of course, they cannot afford to voice that, so they continue mumbling about "road charts", peace plans and crap like that. They score political points and earn a Nobel peace prize once in a while - a handy little bonus.

So you don't think the Israeli and Palestinian politicians are largely responsible for this conflict, and that the Israelis and Palestinian citizens themselves--barring those that simply hate one another's guts--could simply live together in peace, if allowed?

Pekka · Post by **Pekka** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:43 am

fable wrote:So you don't think the Israeli and Palestinian politicians are largely responsible for this conflict, and that the Israelis and Palestinian citizens themselves--barring those that simply hate one another's guts--could simply live together in peace, if allowed?

Well, I think the situation in there is rather complex, which might not be apparent from my first post. Israel is a pretty unique example of a so-called "artificial state", created solely by the good will of several "super powers" after the end of WW II. As such, it has rather feeble cultural and historical roots in its present territory of existence. It is common knowledge that hebrew tribes did dwell in the approximate vicinity for an extensive period of time more than 2,5 thousand years ago, however back then they never had an organized state of any kind. As we can read from the Bible, some tribes were enslaved by Egyptian rulers, much later subdued by Rome and so on. In the new era the jewish people were scattered far and wide (mostly in Europe).
So it should come as no surprise that the local arabic peoples strongly resented a sudden emergence of a country on the land they call their own, because they've lived and died on it for many centuries. From their point of view, Israel is an aberration, a cancer if you like, that must be removed as soon as possible. Add into this the difference in faith and you got yourself a veritable Molotov cocktail. On the other hand, the position of Israel is, of course, self-explanatory - survival at all costs.
As for politicians... Well, they do their thing as best they can. That is, they try to convince the public they have the national interests at heart, at times using strong rhetoric, others - talking about peace and negotiations. Thing is, it doesn't change anything, since neither side is willing to compromise. And, at least on the Arab side, there are forces inside the enclave that are actually vitally interested in the indefinite continuation of the struggle (money, baby, money

) And thus, we have what we have.

Sorry for this long post

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:21 pm

fable wrote:Take a glance at the MidEast! There's a lot of bombs, tankware, bullets and aircraft sitting around the old stomping grounds of so many religions. Doesn't look like any of that is going to change, soon.

Your thoughts, on topic, please.

The rich oil producing countries close to the Middle east conflict areas, have increased their military spending a lot in recent years. Saudi, Oman and Quatar all want to catch up with the Western world. Those countries all have a high GDP as well.

The important question to me is: could all this money be used in a more effecient way? Is military spending and arm's races the best way to create a safer world? Research says it's not. The year after the World Trade Center attack, the annual APA (American Psychological Association) conference was devoted to research about conflict resolution. The APA meeting, although arranged by an American organisation, is a highly international meetings and international research is always presented. In 2002, the general conclusion of the world's collected research about conflicts, was that violent and armed strategies has never worked well and continue to fail. Instead, other long term, stabilising efforts should be used. Numerous examples from around the world was presented. But who the hell cares, because those solutions have little commercial value, they do not strive to maintain current power balance and they initially cost money and may not pay off until long after your election period.

Pekka · Post by **Pekka** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:43 am

Military expenditures will always be very high, because the military and arms makers' lobby wouldn't have it any other way. Besides, no matter how you look at it, violence is sometimes the most effective way to solve a problem. Lets take the Somalian pirates as an example. One way to pacify them would be to rebuild the infrastructure of Somalia (and neighbouring countries), educate the people, give them well-paying jobs. In the long (very long) term this is the best solution. However, it is also possible to send a few military choppers to the coastal villages and "cleanse" them thoroughly. Now, which of these solutions would appeal to the average tax payer do you think? (especially with the right media coverage to spruce it up). Note that I don't advocate wanton violence, I simply state the facts as I see them.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:46 am

The Israeli-Palestinian confrontation has been festering for so long, it seems like a thousand years.

More like 5,000+ years on and off, ever since Abraham first stole the land from the indigenous people. Periodically since then the 'Israelis' have left for other places, not liked it and come back and driven the natives off again.

Not surprisingly the natives continue to resent this and want their land back.

What doesn't help is other, outside forces using the conflict for their own purposes. For decades the 'West' and the Soviet block used it as a game piece, now it's other middle east power mongers using it to further their own ends.

Meanwhile the Palestinians and Israelis get no peace and any attempt to make peace is disrupted by extremist religious fundamentalists and nut jobs on both sides. The ongoing tension is then used by other countries in the region to justify arms expansion.

Sadly there's only one way that at an arms race gets resolved, so far the existence of nuclear weapons has deterred the descent into all out war since 1973, the gods alone know how much longer that will endure for though. One crazy action is all it could take to start a major conflict, just keep your fingers crossed.

Loki[D.d.G] · Post by **Loki[D.d.G]** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:29 pm

Pekka wrote:Besides, no matter how you look at it, violence is sometimes the most effective way to solve a problem.

It is effective, but by no means the most effective. When you solve a problem with violence, you will always create other repercussions for yourself down the line. It is inevitable. Oppressing people with force, i.e. the Somalian pirates, will only serve to draw on retaliation from them, and perhaps discontented people on your own side.

When doing things, there are always two ways. The easy way and the correct way. Unfortunately, the easy way seems to be preferred most of the time. And politicians can't seem to just sit down for half an hour and discuss their problems thoroughly, while actually taking an effort to understand their opposite's argument.

The human tendency for violence will be our own undoing.