China to Increase Military Budget to $35B

[leftchick]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/ap_on_re_as/china_military_budget

BEIJING - China's military budget will rise 14.7 percent this year to $35.3 billion, a government spokesman said Saturday.

The increase will be spent on salaries, new equipment, training and higher fuel costs due to soaring oil prices, said Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for China's parliament, which opens its annual session on Sunday.

Jiang said China is a "peace-loving nation" and that despite the increase, its military budget is still relatively low.

China has announced double-digit spending increases for its 2.5-million-member military nearly every year since the early 1990s, causing unease among its neighbors.

Beijing's true military spending is believed to be as high as several times the reported figure, which doesn't include weapons purchases and other key items.

[brokensymmetry]

1. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is broken...

and dissipated in the sands of Iraq.

Can anyone say "disaster"? How about "Worst pResident ever"?

[WhiteTara]

3. and the mis-administration

is bullying the world causing everyone to increase their arms and militias.
IMPEACH BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE

[PaulaFarrell]

10. Respectfully disagree

According to wikipedia there are 1.4 million active-duty personnel in the US military. So only aroiund 10% are being deployed in Iraq. What the hell are the other 90% doing? Mostly kicking their heels in the US apparently. I personnally would like to see a 50% reduction in military personnel and a similar closure of overseas bases.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. No, they're not "mostly kicking their heels in the US apparently"....

...we have major bases on every continent but Antarctica:

America's Empire of Bases
<http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm>

QUOTE:

It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.

These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.


In summary, whatever the NeoCon Junta is telling us about where our bases are located, don't believe a word of it. My personal guess is that well over half a million troops are deployed outside the U. S., NOT including those stationed in Iraq.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. A peace loving nation has dropped more tonnage of tnt, nukes,

cluster bombs, napalm, white phosphorous, smart bombs, dumb bombs, DU and other niceties than any other nation in the history of the world... so this doesn't say much for China's longterm intent.

[Toots]

17. So you believe their propaganda when they tell you the USA is a peace lovi

nation. Why would you believe that when all the evidence screams out the opposite? Name the wars China has started if you would.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. Not for a minute.... nope, I don't have the blinders on... sorry if I

led you to think that. ;)

[mom cat]

4. And US asks for 3 times that much for just a war supplemental.

Is this part of the push to demonize the Chinese?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. Indeed. US budget for 2004 was $437.111 billion

Larger than the next 20 countries budgets combined.

[mom cat]

6. So, lets really point out China's tiny increase.

[Make7]

7. If they go to the U.N. Security Council demanding....

...weapons inspections to disarm America of its WMD, I am gonna be seriously worried.

:) Make7

[corporate_mike]

8. while millions go hungry in China

[Robeson]

9. Just like the U.S. with our 430 billion+ military budget.....

...I say plus, 'cause Bush is always hitting congress up for supplemental income for his wars....

And yes, people are going hungry here, too.

[Deja Q]

13. What else is new?

I'll worry about them when they grow up. Hell, they can't even maintain a proper population - well over one BILLION. :wow:

I'd rather worry about the US right now. We're putting ourselves on our sword and we're a mere friggin' three hundred MILLION. 1/3rd China's population! Damn straight something's wrong. And it ain't entirely us.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. The last figures I saw indicated that about 6 million Americans....

...are being fed by the food lines that are operating in every urban and rural location.

Yes, millions are hungry in China, but we have a growing problem with hunger right here in this country.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. You're not very original, are you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2145179#2146501

By the way: my reply there also applies here.

[54anickel]

11. In Deal With India, Bush Has Eye on China

Not sure if this ever made it to LBN when it came out. Sorry if it's a repeat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-usindia4mar04,1,2964410.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage


WASHINGTON — A key factor behind the nuclear cooperation agreement reached this week between the United States and India was a simple trade-off: The White House was willing to risk losing ground in the worldwide campaign to limit the spread of nuclear weapons for a deal with India that could help it counter the rising power of China.

Despite widespread criticism that the pact sets back global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, Bush administration officials praise the deal for its promise of better ties with a thriving democracy and reduced competition for world oil.

snip>

"This is an effort to counterbalance the rise of China, but I wouldn't go so far as to say to contain China or to be antagonistic toward it," said L. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Mansfield Foundation in Washington. "We obviously have an interest in a large, democratic, multiethnic society as a counterbalance to the Chinese in the region."

snip>

Under Thursday's deal, India retained the right to deny United Nations inspectors access to a "fast-breeder" reactor suitable for producing weapons-grade fissile material. Since India refused to agree to a cap, there is no limit on the expansion of its nuclear arsenal — a fact that critics say could provoke a regional arms race.

At the beginning of President Bush's first term, dealing with China's growing power was a top priority of many policymakers, beginning with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The need to meet the challenge of China was a central tenet of the neoconservative creed associated with Bush's inner circle.

more...

[Deja Q]

14. self-del

x

[Deja Q]

12. Anyone read this tidbit from 23 November 2005?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/23/uttm/main1070315.shtml

Is the Chinese military getting better, stronger? Absolutely. Will it someday catch up with the U.S.? Not at this rate. Not now, and unless something radical changes … probably not ever.