4 ms·

very cute. your numbers are interesting. if you read your history, you will see that a certain coal mining consortium in the '60s and '70s decided to leverage a

very cute. your numbers are interesting. if you read your history, you will see that a certain coal mining consortium in the '60s and '70s decided to leverage an abiding presence of foreign troops into providing massive social programs for their citizenry despite the crippling effects of a huge, costly war. I said healthcare, but the reality is also roads, bridges, buried power lines, etc. By not having to fund standing armies, the governments of Europe were free to do a lot that i wish my country did for us. I'd say sorry you were offended, but i find your frustration comical, so i guess i will say thank you instead.

peteretep 12y ago
I realize that Wikipedia is some kind of socialist conspiracy plot, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... And the standing army thing is ... odd. Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  God i hope so. At least someone is winning on the intellectual team. As i see it happening, if there was a land war it would be fast and devastating in a very pointed way. Arguably suicidal incursions into city centers by specops chaps and gung ho paramilitary types using drones and wire cutters and wearing all manor of different uniform or guise. Then it is the blitz. This advance must occur before and effective air assault can be made. All this to say it would go from peace to war in a matter of minutes to hours depending on your position. I don't see the Army of the Union responding very well to that. This is all off topic really though, because i am more interested on the perspective of life through the war. That is why i asked. My answer changes like the wind. So, what would you do?
dragonwriter 12y ago
> By not having to fund standing armies, the governments of Europe were free to do a lot that i wish my country did for us. AFAIK, the only European country that doesn't fund a standing military (besides some of the microstates, like Andorra) is Iceland.

peteretep 12y ago

I realize that Wikipedia is some kind of socialist conspiracy plot, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... And the standing army thing is ... odd. Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

classicsnoot 12y ago
God i hope so. At least someone is winning on the intellectual team. As i see it happening, if there was a land war it would be fast and devastating in a very pointed way. Arguably suicidal incursions into city centers by specops chaps and gung ho paramilitary types using drones and wire cutters and wearing all manor of different uniform or guise. Then it is the blitz. This advance must occur before and effective air assault can be made. All this to say it would go from peace to war in a matter of minutes to hours depending on your position. I don't see the Army of the Union responding very well to that. This is all off topic really though, because i am more interested on the perspective of life through the war. That is why i asked. My answer changes like the wind. So, what would you do?

dragonwriter 12y ago

> By not having to fund standing armies, the governments of Europe were free to do a lot that i wish my country did for us. AFAIK, the only European country that doesn't fund a standing military (besides some of the microstates, like Andorra) is Iceland.