# China Agrees With The Democrats



## Jroc (Jul 11, 2011)

We spend too much on defense....


*China says US spends too much on military*


BEIJING (AP) &#8212; The United States is spending too much on its military in light of its recent economic troubles, China's top general said Monday while playing down his country's own military capabilities.

The chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, Chen Bingde, told reporters that he thought the U.S. should cut back on defense spending for the sake of its taxpayers. He was speaking during a joint news conference in which he traded barbs with visiting U.S. counterpart Adm. Mike Mullen.

"I know the U.S. is still recovering from the financial crisis," Chen said. "Under such circumstances, it is still spending a lot of money on its military and isn't that placing too much pressure on the taxpayers?"

"If the U.S. could reduce its military spending a bit and spend more on improving the livelihood of the American people ... wouldn't that be a better scenario?" he said.

The visit by Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the first of its kind in four years. Mullen and Chen are trying to upgrade military-to-military ties after setbacks over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, cyberattacks traced to China and concern about Beijing's military plans.

Chen made a similar trip to the U.S. in May as part of efforts to improve often frosty relations between the two militaries, especially as the economies of the countries become more codependent.

The world's two biggest economies frequently clash over financial issues, such as Beijing's resistance to exchange rate reforms and the ballooning U.S. trade deficit with China. Such issues are not usually at the forefront of military to military talks, though both sides chide each other for their defense spending.

China's military budget of $95 billion this year is the world's second-highest after Washington's planned $650 billion in defense spending.

Chen said China remains more than two decades behind the U.S. in terms of military technology and Beijing still needs to upgrade by adding new hardware such as aircraft carriers


China says US spends too much on military - Yahoo! News


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 11, 2011)

Of course they do. They surely don't want the USA to have a strong military.  It's kind of like Joe Fraizer telling Ali he works out to much befor a fight.


----------



## Jroc (Jul 11, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Of course they do. They surely don't want the USA to have a strong military.  It's kind of like Joe Fraizer telling Ali he works out to much befor a fight.



Its good to know The Dems and China have the same goal.


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 11, 2011)

Jroc said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they do. They surely don't want the USA to have a strong military.  It's kind of like Joe Fraizer telling Ali he works out to much befor a fight.
> ...


 Exactly. America needs to spend less on defense and more on crap made in China.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

Jroc said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they do. They surely don't want the USA to have a strong military.  It's kind of like Joe Fraizer telling Ali he works out to much befor a fight.
> ...



To be prosperous?

Yeah..I am down with that.

You been to China lately?


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



Oh yea, They've made us real prosperous.  Of course they did make China more prosperous with all that borrowed stimulus debt.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



No.

America needs to spend less on defense and more on infrastructure, science, education, research and space exploration.

We are at the point where this country can destroy the biosphere on the earth several times over and can invade 2 countries, simultaneously. We spend more money on the military (I'd hardly call it defense) then the top militaries of the world, combined. We have bases all over the world. What other country has bases all over the world?

And with all that spending..what the fuck are we expecting to "defend" against? The Death Star?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, the Dems do seem to be the darlings of the antiquated Communist movement.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



They have made *themselves* prosperous.

Catch up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Well, the Dems do seem to be the darlings of the antiquated Communist movement.



Reagan beat the USSR so badly he left the Communist no choice but to complete their takeover of the Dem Party, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The Chinese need ObamaCare and FinReg, that should slow them down, maybe FDR labor laws too


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Talk to Obama. He's the president. He's the one that requested a bigger military budget than Bush.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jul 11, 2011)




----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Deomcrats have done nothing for America


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the Dems do seem to be the darlings of the antiquated Communist movement.
> ...



Reagan didn't beat shit.

What he did was to not fuck up the fact that reform was coming to the USSR. He promised them all sorts of economic goodies for giving up the satellite republics (which they couldn't afford to maintain anyway) and switch their political system. It cost the US a good deal of tax payer money. But it was probably money well spent. Jury is still out.

In any case..if it was George W. Bush at the helm..the USSR would still exist. So I give Reagan credit.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



Yeah..it's not like the Democrats won WWII or created a middle class in this country.

Oh wait..they did.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


>



Yes, it's McCain's Fault.  Clearly


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Wasn't Ike a Republican?  

BTW, How about coming up with something in this century.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and knew that given half a chance the Soviet people would scrap Communism any day of the week. So with the Pope, Lech and Thatcher they set out to topple the USSR and they did.

A friend of mine just told me a story, he's an engineer in NJ and after Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall some USSR engineers came to visit in NJ. My friend took them to a supermarket and it left the Soviets in tears. They lined up in Moscow for whatever unknown crap got delivered that morning; they'd heard that our prosperity was a lie, that no such thing as fresh produce, breads, meats really existed and was readily accessible to the Proletariat.

They'd been lied to their hold lives, that's something American Progressives can learn from


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



The Clinton economy was amazing.



By the way..WWII happened this century. And Ike was a general...he was not Commander in Chief.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





This leaves out a whole lot of history. And Reagan, from what I've read, nearly blew it with that "evil empire" crack. Gorbachev let him know that if he kept up with that line, it would be impossible to continue with reforms. Reagan was smart enough, and Charismatic enough to befriend Gorbie and carry on.

And it should be American Conservatism (or Plutocracy types) that should take a lesson from these idiotic commie governments (which once are up and running become very conservative).

The French Revolution, The Cuban Revolution, The Chinese Revolution, The Russian Revolution and the rise of Fascism were all the results of economic misery at the behest of the wealthy.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 11, 2011)

We need to cut from EVERYWHERE. Defense included. Even if we cut defense by 50% (which I am not suggesting we do), we would still spending close to that all of Europe + Russia Combined and MORE all of Asia, including China (about $80 bil more)!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



See, that's the difference between Americans and American Progressives, we view history through the US point of View, you see with Moscow vision.

Reagan took a hard line with the Soviets (Pershing II and Minuteman missiles ring a bell?), called them an "Evil Empire", said their final pages were being written and delivered on it... "freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history."

Yeah, but Gorby, was the one running the show.  What a fucking joke


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Reagan put up "Star Wars', spent more money then any President before him and funded the muj. All of those things had very little effect on the Soviet Union.

In fact, Carter's Wheat embargo crippled them much more then any of those hostile and idiotic nightmarish spending schemes. It displayed for the Russians, in a very clear and concise manner, how fucked up the commies were. They couldn't even grow enough wheat to keep bread on the shelves without America.

Reagan's acting chops helped him out here. And if he didn't partner up with Gorbie..we'd still be talking about what a threat the Soviets were..

Bottom line.


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Yea, he just directed the troops and developed military strategy.  

Actually it was last century btw.


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The soviets bowed to Reagen, the piss on Obama.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Reagan's spending very much had an effect on the USSR.  They spent, too, in keeping with a good Cold War mentality.  They just couldn't keep up and they crumbled before we did.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Very little effect? LOL!!  Seriously?

And Star Wars actually worked and the Soviets got their asses kicked in Afghanistan!!

Reagan: The USSR is an Evil Empire and we intend to dismantle it.
Gorby: Yeah! What he said!!


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah..very little affect. In fact..the hardliners wanted to break off discussions and double down.

Russia would have left Afghanistan anyway..it was to hard to manage on their own. And thanks to Reagan..the muj was the faction of choice for Afghanistan..and we all know how that turned out for America.

What did it for Russia was the promise of Economic aid (Which COST US BILLIONS, BY THE WAY).

And thanks to George W Bush..Russia has basically gone a bit more hard line again.


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Ah the old liberal blame Bush card


----------



## Sallow (Jul 11, 2011)

iggy pop said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Correction.

The Soviets were paid off by Reagan.

The Russians reduced their nuclear arsenal and are keeping an eye on "loose nukes" thanks to President Obama.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 11, 2011)

China Agrees With The Democrats 
Of course they do.
They have the same philosophy, big government and controlling the people.
Of course China wants us to have a smaller weaker military.
Are you Libs forgetting that is what our government is supposed to do? Not social programs.
Notice how they didn't say anything about getting rid of too many social programs.


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Except we cut ours by a hell of a lot more than they did.  

And no, the Soviets feared Reagen, they piss on Obama.


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> China Agrees With The Democrats
> Of course they do.
> They have the same philosophy, big government and controlling the people.
> Of course China wants us to have a smaller weaker military.
> ...



also notice they don't have social programs of their own. They have jobs. Something the democrats haven't been able to deliver.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Under START 2010, this is counted as one deployed nuclear warhead:






  Way to go, Obama.


----------



## Bill Angel (Jul 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and knew that given half a chance the Soviet people would scrap Communism any day of the week. So with the Pope, Lech and Thatcher they set out to topple the USSR and they did.



Many people think that the Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan also contributed to the breakup of the USSR. It's ironic to think that the USA and Osama bin Laden were on the same side in helping the Afghan Mujaheddin defeat the Soviet Union. Perhaps the name of Osama in Laden should be added to the list (above) that includes the "Pope, Lech, and Thatcher"?


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 11, 2011)

iggy pop said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > China Agrees With The Democrats
> ...



That's because they work cheap.

Something the repubs are trying their hardest to get Americans to sign onto.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



You really have lost any shred of intellect.


----------



## Jroc (Jul 11, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



 Yep... 800 million people living in slums and poverty...the liberal utopia.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You're kidding, right?  That was a comedy routine you wrote for Noose right?  

They would have left Afghanistan anyway?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 11, 2011)

> *China Agrees With The Democrats*


Turnabout is always fair.....




Jus' sayin


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2011)

Bill Angel said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and knew that given half a chance the Soviet people would scrap Communism any day of the week. So with the Pope, Lech and Thatcher they set out to topple the USSR and they did.
> ...



It's even more ironic that you could yourself as in "intellectual" you lying, clueless moron


----------



## Bill Angel (Jul 12, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I believe that what you meant to write was:

"It's even more ironic that you could call yourself an "intellectual" you lying, clueless moron" 

 I think that if you are going to go to the trouble of insulting someone, you should at least take the trouble to get your grammar and syntax correct!


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 12, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Nothing wrong with working cheap if the COL is balanced with wages.


----------



## editec (Jul 12, 2011)

The USA certainly spends too much on defense given its revenues.

In that sense I completely agree with China.

Now if we want to close that gap there's only two ways to do it.

Either increase revenues (AKA Taxes) or decrease spending.

I will say exactly the same thing about social spending.

We do piss away a LOT of dough on foolish things and our welfare system ISN"T very effective.


----------



## Douger (Jul 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


No . You idiots did by worshipping Walmart.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2011)

Jroc said:


> We spend too much on defense....
> 
> 
> *China says US spends too much on military*
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY]YouTube - &#x202a;Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 12, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



That would make US manufacturing competitive again and bring back jobs.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 12, 2011)

iggy pop said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > iggy pop said:
> ...



OK then you first.

Go to your boss and tell him you think you're making too much.  He'll be more than happy to comply.


----------



## SinoUSWatcher (Jul 14, 2011)

Great article from former Congressman Les AuCoin on China-US relations on ChinaUSFocus.com


----------

