The military budget of China in 2007 financial year

Of course some people in Asia harbour ill feelings against the chinese people like the viets and indonesians but they know that they will have to work and live with China no matter

Click to expand...

i doubt very much that the vietnamese and the indonesian have ill feeling towards china, more than half of viet populations are descendant of the chinese, even the viet themself shared history with the chinese, and the viet was once of the tribes of chinese. where as the indonesian have a historical relationship of more than 1000 years. they can always reflect on their good relationship rather than a few bruises. after all the chinese brought muslim to indonesia.

as for the chinese military expenditure, i certainly hope they will be the dragon dat they always were for more then 2000 years. stand tall and humble of their historical achievement and REVENGE on past killers.

50 millions or so died during the Taiping rebellion.
the opion war.
the boxing rebellion
the nanying rape
the oversee chinese masacre etc.

it's time for the dragon the show it's true colour.

You have to consider the fact that ethnic Chinese tend to be disliked in Indonesia because the impression is that they take away business and just get themselves rich, which obviously isn't the case. Nevertheless there is still discrimination.

Oh yeah, the fact that China invaded Vietnam around 30 years ago doesn't endear them much either.

I certainly hope your vengeful desires do NOT get acted upon. Thank heavens you don't lead China. Who do you get revenge on for the Taiping rebellion anyway?

If you look at the major players in the region, I'd say everybody is fudging their numbers. There are many items related to military and military R&D that are shuffled under non-military expenditure. I'd take the official figures and flush it down the toilet.

When evaluating military budgets, I'd like to use the Wendy's Clara Peller test: "Where's the beef". If the beef patty isn't there, it ain't there. Show me the tanks, planes, and ships.


Does the PLA have an increasing expenditure? Yes. Has the PLA acquired a lot of beef patties (new ships, planes, tanks) lately? Yup. Does the expenditure equate to more beef patties? Yup.

Why is US, Japan, etc. concerned? Because they're losing the huge gap in miliary technology that they had enjoyed over the PLA. If the situation was reversed, where the PRC had enjoyed a military "lead" over the past 50 years, and Japan was catching up, you'd be reading about the PRC being "concerned" about the "Japanese build up". This is also hypocritcal because nobody questions the guy on top about his 'build up" because its implied that all he wants to do is to maintain the status quo, and everyone else under him should be happy about it. Such is the way of the world.

The_Zergling said:

You have to consider the fact that ethnic Chinese tend to be disliked in Indonesia because the impression is that they take away business and just get themselves rich, which obviously isn't the case. Nevertheless there is still discrimination.
Oh yeah, the fact that China invaded Vietnam around 30 years ago doesn't endear them much either.

Click to expand...

Indonesia's mess started when the Dutch imposed a system of apartheid between Dutch, Chinese/non-white immigrans, and Pribumi (the natives). When Indonesia gained independence the old system had been around so long it became the cultural norm of "us vs. them".

Vietnam is mostly non-issue in post-Cold War era. Without Soviet backing they have no hope of contesting vs. China militarily. I foresee relations "warming" as the Vietnamese government try to play both Washington and Beijing for maximum self-benefit.

I came across an interesting commentary on this subject :

Power politics in today’s world doesn’t require the direct exercise of military power so much as the capacity to pressure other major powers indirectly – for example, credibly threatening to use force against Taiwan, or selling advanced weapons systems to oil-rich or raw-materials-rich developing nations, or, in the case of North Korea, becoming the source of food and weapons.

Sound familiar? China is not inventing this strategy of combining economic power with military power. It’s following in the footsteps of the nation that wrote the play book on how it’s done – the United States.

Click to expand...

FuManChu said:

That is true, but the US is currently fighting two wars. I would be surprised if the figure didn't drop down after the inevitable pull-out. And while the US is engaged in those conflicts its resources are stretched further. Whereas China has only one part of the world to think about.

Click to expand...

Not fighting, invaded and occupying two soverign countries. You are trying to justify the invasion of soverign nations for the increase of US military budget. That's just ridiculous. First of all, it is an illegal invasion condemned by the world community; what would you feel if China is to invade Taiwan to justify its military budget increase??


And ofcourse, seeing these unlawful acts is enough to make any countries to increase their military budget to defend themselves against the possible american wonton aggression.


Second of all, FuManChu, you need to check your facts first, incase you don't know how to read, the war in Afganistan and Iraq are NOT part of the already astronomical US military budget. They are paid through supplementary spending bills, therefore they are external to the military budget. The current US military budget is US$ 532.8 billion. Again, let me stress this to you, Afganistan, Iraq, are not part of that budget.


From wikipedia :
"It must be stressed that the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (i.e. are paid for through supplementary spending bills) and are therefore external to the military budget figures listed above."


"This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, e.g. $120 billion in 2007)."


"In addition, the United States has long had a history of black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Thus, the true amount spent by the United States on military spending is significantly higher than the given budgetary figures."





........................................................................................................

Asymptote, wikipedia is not a good reference source. Simply because anyone can post any sort of information they want on that site without verfication.

In no way am I saying your information seclected from wikepeda is incorrect. Please try to use another source to verfy your information.

Thank you.

Asymptote said:

You are trying to justify the invasion of soverign nations for the increase of US military budget. That's just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting people keep making incorrect statements about my previous comments, even though I explained what I meant and highlighted what I actually said, as opposed to what I have been alleged to have said. Please show me where I said any of that.

I do sometimes wonder, is this forum heavily populated by people with poor eyesight but "too cool" to wear glasses (and can't afford contacts), or do they just deliberately misinterpret what people have to say to suit their prejudices?

Second of all, FuManChu, you need to check your facts first, incase you don't know how to read

Click to expand...

Ironic you say that, given you are incapable of reading my posts properly. That, or you deliberately make up lies about what I have said. Which is it?

the war in Afganistan and Iraq are NOT part of the already astronomical US military budget. They are paid through supplementary spending bills, therefore they are external to the military budget. The current US military budget is US$ 532.8 billion. Again, let me stress this to you, Afganistan, Iraq, are not part of that budget.

Click to expand...

Using something like wikipedia is not that useful, especially if the source used on that point appears to be a website specifically set up to criticise the Iraq war. Could you give a more objective source that discusses the matter, please.

bd popeye said:

Asymptote, wikipedia is not a good reference source. Simply because anyone can post any sort of information they want on that site without verfication.

In no way am I saying your information seclected from wikepeda is incorrect. Please try to use another source to verfy your information.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

How about from the President itself?


The number seems to differ from what I got from wikipedia, but I believe it is calculated differently.





The President’s Budget:
* Provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget—a 7-percent increase over 2006 and a 48-percent increase over 2001..." (talk about pot calling kettle black....)

* Requests $50 billion in 2007 bridge funding to support the military’s Global War on Terror efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq into 2007... (supplimental)


Note that war in Afganistan and Iraq are funded through supplmentals..the one quoted above is only "bridge funding" between the year I believe. And as I remember in news, it was request almost twice a year at roughly $80 billion each time for the past few years.
(Sometimes as "emergency requests")

At the bottom of the page, the number is different again, estimated at 504.8 billion for the base budget, so I don't know how exactly those are calculated. But the number roughly match up to the wikipedia quoted number of $532.8 billion dollars. The difference is $28 billion, so it must be from somewhere...(perhaps someone can enlighten us all...)

FuManChu said:

I find it interesting people keep making incorrect statements about my previous comments, even though I explained what I meant and highlighted what I actually said, as opposed to what I have been alleged to have said. Please show me where I said any of that.

I do sometimes wonder, is this forum heavily populated by people with poor eyesight but "too cool" to wear glasses (and can't afford contacts), or do they just deliberately misinterpret what people have to say to suit their prejudices?

Ironic you say that, given you are incapable of reading my posts properly. That, or you deliberately make up lies about what I have said. Which is it?

Using something like wikipedia is not that useful, especially if the source used on that point appears to be a website specifically set up to criticise the Iraq war. Could you give a more objective source that discusses the matter, please.

Click to expand...

NO, I read your post perfectly fine. You seem to be incapable of reading your own post. If a lot of people (the majority) are making "incorrect statements" about your previous comment, it means we are not the one mis-intepreting your intention, it is YOU misintepreting your own thought... or you are simply incapable of communicating effectively. Perhaps you need to go back to school to learn how to communicate effectively.

And FuManChu, a little bit of googling is all it take to dig up the number, (from the President itself) instead of sitting there on your lazy ass criticizing the validity of my findings.

Asymptote said:

NO, I read your post perfectly fine. You seem to be incapable of reading your own post.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take you back to school, because obviously you didn't pass even basic English.

I said:

"The point, which you of course missed, was that because the US has got involved in two conflicts the increases in its budget is more justifiable. The US did not make those military interventions so that it could increase the budget."

Because the US is already in those situations. I did not say it was "ok" to go into those places - I said because it was there it is understandable the US would spend more on defence, whether it is through central or supplementary budgets.

And a little bit of googling is all it take to dig up the number, (from the President itself) instead of sitting there on your lazy ass critising and the validity of my fact.

Click to expand...

Why the hell should I help you research points you want to make? You're exceptionally more lazy if you expect me to do it.

FuManChu said:

Ok, I'll take you back to school, because obviously you didn't pass even basic English.

I said:

"The point, which you of course missed, was that because the US has got involved in two conflicts the increases in its budget is more justifiable. The US did not make those military interventions so that it could increase the budget."

Because the US is already in those situations. I did not say it was "ok" to go into those places - I said because it was there it is understandable the US would spend more on defence, whether it is through central or supplementary budgets.

Click to expand...

You obviously is confused by your own language. And I highly doubt you even pass high school English.


First of all, US did not "got involved" like it was a bystander caught in an accident it cannot avoid. It was a planned, and intentional military invasion.

Secondly, if US did not increase the budget, can the Pentagon afford to even start these wars without the funding? The word "funding" means "to make provision of resources for discharging the interest or principal."

The wars are obviously funded by the congress... (as supplementals - read the above White House link to the 2007 Presidential budget - maybe ask your high school teacher to read it aloud to you since you don't know how to read..or explain to you if you can't comprehend ) Without these fundings, United States would never be able to start these wars. If you cannot understand this simple concept, you obviously also failed high school math. (Or perhaps, Accounting)

Why the hell should I help you research points you want to make? You're exceptionally more lazy if you expect me to do it.

Click to expand...

I am merely pointing out how infantile your retorts are. You bring no fact to the table, while criticizing my facts without basis of any fact.