skip to main |
skip to sidebar
SECDEF puts it nicer,“A number of countries in Nato really ought to think more carefully about the nature of the world we are living in, and if they are comfortable with the very modest percentage of GDP that they are committing to defence,” Mr Rumsfeld told the Financial Times ahead of his arrival in Munich for an annual security conference.
The US has long complained about Europe not spending enough on defence, but Mr Rumsfeld said he was concerned that some countries were spending less than one per cent of gross domestic product on defence.
Why is this an issue?According to the US defense department, in 2000 the US spent just short of 3 percent of its GDP on defense. Only Turkey and Greece, less prosperous countries, spent proportionately more, at 5.71 and 4.92 percent respectively. Other NATO members devoted a much smaller share of their resources to defense. Canada, for example, spent 1.17 percent. An increase of military expenditures closer to 3 percent of GDP by other NATO members might enhance the collective power of Europe and Canada vis-a-vis the US, for the net effect of the current low spending levels is to magnify further the American influence within the Atlantic alliance. Since 9/11 this influence has only increased, as US defense spending is now variously estimated to stand at between 3.2 and 5 percent of GDP.
As Mom and Dad taught me; with rights come responsibilities. There are a lot of NATO members who are catching a relatively free ride. True that one cannot expect Luxemberg's military to have an armed division at the ready, but on a per-capita basis, they should do what they can.Here is a proposal; you don't have to spend as much as the U.S., Greece and Turkey as a percent of GDP - but if you want to play in our club you must spend ~2.5% with a waiver down to 2%. If you don't want to, fine. Go play with Austria.
University of Florida employees have to pledge that they're having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits under a new health care plan at the university.
There is so much humor here, I just don't know where to start.
In addition to declaring joint financial obligations, prospective enrollees must "have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months," according to the affidavit.
(insert punchline here)She said she was taken aback to find that employees would be required to swear to prior sexual activity, a standard not applied to married couples covered by UF's primary health care plan.
I give up. This is too easy
This is different than "happy or glad." Neither Marines nor Sailors like to be confused by each other. You would expect better from Stars and Stripes...but then again.Marine medics in Iraq are more likely to face serious injury or death than are the riflemen they’re working to help
...
officials show that the job of the combat medic, or Navy corpsman, is among the most dangerous in the war, in large part because of the situations they put themselves in.
“They’re literally moving in and moving out of the fight to get to their patients,” he said. “They’re among the first to go into battle, and they’re right in the middle of it.”
If you aren't very familiar with Corpsmen, and what "Doc" does, read the whole thing. Good read.They need a better editor.
Well, so much for the "French" part of yesterday's post.France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.
But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".
Ah ha. There is a little tid-bit here. Note the last name of the sacked editor. Yep, that is French. Note the last name of the owner. Yep that is Arabic. Egyptian to be exact. Looks like some are French, some just have a French passport. Where are the barricades?Hat tip Capt Ed.
Sometimes I just like to let the pictures speak for themselves. Free speech is great, but it goes both ways. Here is what the JCS say. Nuff said.We were extremely disappointed to see the editorial cartoon by Tom Toles on page B6 in the January 29th edition. Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon is beyond tasteless. Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues--and your paper is obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of today's Armed Forces. However, we believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defened this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds...
...While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.
As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.
Hat tip Michelle.
UPDATE: A very good "adjustment" of the cartoon at FromMyPosition..OnTheWay - who is, ahem, in the right position to make a comment. And yes, you have to click it. Snicker.
Just a pic from one of the guys on flickr whose photos I enjoy. Makes me want to give Mrs. Salamander a kiss.
When I called for it last May, I never thought it would happen. For both writing and photography. What a well deserved nom. Make sure to go by his site to see them all, in addition to the one that started it all.Hat tip Mudville Gazette.
