At 08:50 AM 2/22/02 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> Europe has no need to spend anything like what the US spends. But then,
>I've
>> argued that the US has no need to spend anywhere near what it currently
>> spends, let alone what it plans to.
>>
>> The sooner ALL nations start spending for their own border defence, and
>> limited (with a capital L) protection of external interests, the better.
>>
>
>So, I take it that you are opposed to the Clinton doctrine? If a dictator
>is practicing genocide, the world should keep hands off? The US should have
>told Europe to handle the Balkins by itself? If a million people died, that
>would have been better than what happened?
Not that I'm one to notice *anything* about not responding these days, but
does anyone remember if anyone responded to this? Brett? Jeroen? Just
curious - because it seems like a great - and ultimately, very important
question - Is the Clinton Doctrine a good model for foreign policy?
(BTW - do I get credit for coining the term "Clinton Doctrine? ;-)
>As I posted before, the spending on weapons for the US fell from about 9% of
>GDP in the '60s to about 3% last year. With the "massive buildup", I
>estimate it will go to 3.5%. My guess is that the Nazi buildup was in the
>30% range.
I should point out that the Washington Post recently reported that the US
may not attack Iraq in May after all (as previously reported) because,
incredibly enough, the US doesn't have enough firepower to do it for
probably another eight months or so.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
