Maybe the U.S.A. should just tax the rest of the world.

[Gob]

[Rick]

Check out numbers 5, 4 & 1 on this list...

So ya got yer coastal defense in place.

Now you can add the 6 vessels that were earmarked for coastal defense to yer open water Navy (till the first large squall) so what's the count now ~23 yeah I can see ya'll holding yer part of the world open.

Which part was that now?

[Lord Jim]

Hey Lennie!

Elwood Blues called...

He wants his hat and suit back!

[Gob]

Which part was that now?

The non-warmongering part, the civilised bit...

[Rick]

Which part was that now?

The non-warmongering part, the civilised bit...

That's right, nowhere that we haven't already been...

[Gob]

And come away totally confused....

[Andrew D]

Oh well, as long as you are happy to keep doing it ....

Exactly. Why should we remain willing to keep doing it?

[Gob]

Because you don't want to stop.

[Andrew D]

So you have nothing left but silliness. Okay.

[Long Run]

I don't think he is being silly, but instead making the obvious point that we will continue to provide the main means to ensure open waterways around the globe. So, why should they pay for this as a direct tax of some kind. Arguably, the U.S. gets its money worth by acting in its self-interest; that is, we get enough benefit out of keeping the oceans safe that we can justify this expense just for ourselves. (And arguably, other wealthy countries give pay back in forms other than direct taxes, such as cooperating in keeping in check the Chinese and before them, the Soviets). Are other countries getting a "free ride" as a result? Yes and no.

Let's say you live by a property that is essentially a great big park/forest. You pay none of the cost of keeping up this beautiful property, but you get the benefit of having such scenery and a buffer from the uglier developments. This Econ 101 topic is essentially what we are dealing with. You are happy to have your place, but don't want to pay your neighbor to keep up his land; and you should have no say if the neighbor decides to change his property (though of course I am now jesting since we would all howl about how the neighbor has to keep his property a park/forest for my benefit).

Similarly, why can't other countries enjoy the benefits produced by our Navy. By the same token, they should not have much say when we decide not to use the Navy to protect their resources. Of course, that is why we have treaties, and under those treaties we supposedly have a reasonable allocation of duties to meet our shared goals.

[Gob]

So you have nothing left but silliness. Okay.

If you wanted to end this, why would you not stop? There is no will to stop, and outside of one one voice crying in the wilderness I know of not public sentiment, grass roots movement or political will to stop.

The only silliness I can see is coming from the idiot who started it.

[Lord Jim]

Mr. Long Run hits the nail precisely on the head again...



I wish you'd post more often Long Run; you'd save me a lot of key strokes...

[Gob]

42% of your imported goods coming in by sea is a good reason for you to preserve your naval forces.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s foreign trade statistics, the goods deficit with China was US$256.3 billion in 2007. The U.S. exported US$65.2 billion worth of soybeans, civilian aircraft, and industrial machines to China, but imported US$321.5 billion worth of computers, toys, games, sporting goods, telecommunications equipment and apparel from China.

Gotta keep the toys coming....

[Rick]

In 2000-01, the predominant mode of transport for Australia's exports (table 30.31) was sea transport, with $98,705m or 83% of total exports by value. Air transport accounted for $20,750m or 17%, and parcel post $147m or 0.1%. Australia exported 498.3 million tonnes of merchandise, the vast majority of which by weight was transported by sea (496.5 million tonnes).

In 2000-01, the predominant mode of transport for Australia's imports (table 30.32) was also sea transport, with $82,433m or 70% of total imports by value. Air transport accounted for $35,749m or 30%, and parcel post $82m or 0.1%. Australia imported 54.3 million tonnes of merchandise, considerably less than the tonnage of exports. Sea transport accounted for almost all of merchandise imports by weight (54.1 million tonnes).

1st link I came to

[Scooter]

I don't think he is being silly, but instead making the obvious point that we will continue to provide the main means to ensure open waterways around the globe.

That makes it sound as if the US Navy is constantly patrolling all of the major shipping lanes of the world looking for threats to neutralize. What is closer to the truth is that you have a large navy, and thus in certain circumstances you are more likely to have a ship nearest to a problem than other naval powers.

I certainly didn't see the US Navy responding, for example, when EU fishing boats were violating treaties and illegally fishing in Atlantic waters near to North America, nor would you have been expected to, because you didn't see your economic interests being threatened, and they were dealt with by those who did. But you had no hesitation in asserting your "right" to traverse Canadian internal waters in the Arctic, where you were clearly not welcome. What threat were you acting against there? Rogue Inuit kayaks?

[Scooter]

In 2000-01, the predominant mode of transport for Australia's exports (table 30.31) was sea transport, with $98,705m or 83% of total exports by value. Air transport accounted for $20,750m or 17%, and parcel post $147m or 0.1%. Australia exported 498.3 million tonnes of merchandise, the vast majority of which by weight was transported by sea (496.5 million tonnes).

And last time I checked, Australia had no problem dealing with any assholes who might have been a threat to that trade or to anything else in the area.

[Rick]

Or the straits of hormuz...

[Scooter]

The U.S patrols that area because it is in its direct interest to do so, which is the reason it does so in pretty much any other part of the globe. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend there is some selfless benevolence behind it.

[Gob]

Or the straits of hormuz...

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, on an average day in 2011, about 14 tankers carrying 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) of crude oil passed out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait. This was said to represent 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of oil traded worldwide. The report stated that more than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea and China the largest destinations

I'm sure Japan, India, South Korea and China are very grateful for your support.

[Crackpot]

But I want to solve our debt problems on the backs of the rest of the world Damnit!