Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.

[Spare_change]

Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.

Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.

See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?

100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.

So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?

Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.

I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer. He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----

Components Funding Change, 2012 to 2013
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
Total Spending $610.096 billion -10.5%

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

 

[rightwinger]

I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer. He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----

Components Funding Change, 2012 to 2013
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
Total Spending $610.096 billion -10.5%

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

 

[Spare_change]

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.

However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".

The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.

Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?

Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?

For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.

Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.

Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.

Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?

Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?

 

[jbander]

I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer. He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----

Components Funding Change, 2012 to 2013
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
Total Spending $610.096 billion -10.5%

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

My my He just doesn't get it. The military is protect us not some corporate interest but us, our bodies not what we want and it exist to protect our borders. How simple can this be, it is a lot of work having to deal with these brain dead.
Anyone who is trying to sell this bullshit is selling out this country and our young , nothing more. Simply put them on ignore if they can't understand a principle as simple as this.
I will ask brain dead one question , what were the two companies that gained the most by Bushes Liars war.

 

[Spare_change]

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Well, how are we gonna pay for it?

Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.

It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.

Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?

I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?

Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending was only 14.5% of the budget.

Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.

As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.

Back to your question - how do we pay for it?

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,

See what I mean?

You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.

I specifically asked you to:

1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)

You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.

 

[Spare_change]

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----

Components Funding Change, 2012 to 2013
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
Total Spending $610.096 billion -10.5%

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.

"Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?

It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?

Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?

I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.

I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.

 

[jbander]

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.

However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".

The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.

Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?

Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?

For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.

Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.

Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.

Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?

Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?

I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense

 

[Spare_change]

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----

Components Funding Change, 2012 to 2013
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
Total Spending $610.096 billion -10.5%

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

My my He just doesn't get it. The military is protect us not some corporate interest but us, our bodies not what we want and it exist to protect our borders. How simple can this be, it is a lot of work having to deal with these brain dead.
Anyone who is trying to sell this bullshit is selling out this country and our young , nothing more. Simply put them on ignore if they can't understand a principle as simple as this.
I will ask brain dead one question , what were the two companies that gained the most by Bushes Liars war.

Ignorance abounds.

 

[Spare_change]

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.

However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".

The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.

Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?

Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?

For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.

Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.

Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.

Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?

Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?

I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.

"Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?

It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?

Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?

I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.

I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.

See...the thing is
The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests

All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.

Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace

Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.

 

[rightwinger]

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.

However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".

The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.

Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?

Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?

For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.

Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.

Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.

Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?

Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?

Yes, the old Cold War Fulda Gap horror stories

We overbuilt our military presence for 40 years trying to protect that gap. Turned out the Soviet Union was not the threat our military built them up to be.
Russia is even less

 

[jbander]

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Well, how are we gonna pay for it?

Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.

It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.

Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?

I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?

Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending was only 14.5% of the budget.

Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.

As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.

Back to your question - how do we pay for it?

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,

See what I mean?

You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.

I specifically asked you to:

1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)

You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.

Why would I even consider doing that I asked him and all he did was bail on the question by saying that I had to answer something first, that's not the game , I made a idiot out of him by putting him in the corner with the rest of the brain dead. and he can't respond. That's the story . he sells himself as all knowing on this subject so I asked him to enlighten us. I think everyone here knows he just a blowhard and can't back up what he says . It is a little stupid and revealing when someone comes and supports his bullshit, when it couldn't be clearer that hes trying to bullshit his way out a guest ion that he can't answer. I guess all liars stick together. Its kind of like stupid supporting stupid.

 

[Spare_change]

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.

"Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?

It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?

Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?

I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.

I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.

See...the thing is
The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests

All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.

Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace

Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.

Everything costs something.

You only have to decide whether you are willing to pay the price ...

How many Somali girls are you willing to sacrifice for that new stretch of road?

How many Iraqi refugees die so we can buy a bigger TV?

How many girls get raped in Pakistan so you can get a new car?

What's a steak worth? Three dead babies.

Everything costs something.

BTW - off the top of my head, I can think of 13 countries that maintain military facilities outside their borders. Just sayin' ...

 

[Spare_change]

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.

However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".

The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.

Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?

Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?

For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.

Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.

Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.

Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?

Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?

Yes, the old Cold War Fulda Gap horror stories

We overbuilt our military presence for 40 years trying to protect that gap. Turned out the Soviet Union was not the threat our military built them up to be.
Russia is even less

That was merely an example of direct confrontation - I could have done the same in Korea, for example.

But, let me ask you --- if we open the door, do you seriously believe Russia wouldn't come thru?

 

[Spare_change]

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Well, how are we gonna pay for it?

Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.

It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.

Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?

I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?

Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending was only 14.5% of the budget.

Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.

As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.

Back to your question - how do we pay for it?

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,

See what I mean?

You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.

I specifically asked you to:

1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)

You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.

Why would I even consider doing that I asked him and all he did was bail on the question by saying that I had to answer something first, that's not the game , I made a idiot out of him by putting him in the corner with the rest of the brain dead. and he can't respond. That's the story . he sells himself as all knowing on this subject so I asked him to enlighten us. I think everyone here knows he just a blowhard and can't back up what he says . It is a little stupid and revealing when someone comes and supports his bullshit, when it couldn't be clearer that hes trying to bullshit his way out a guest ion that he can't answer. I guess all liars stick together. Its kind of like stupid supporting stupid.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Well, how are we gonna pay for it?

Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.

It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.

Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?

I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?

Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending was only 14.5% of the budget.

Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.

As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.

Back to your question - how do we pay for it?

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.

Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,

See what I mean?

You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.

I specifically asked you to:

1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)

You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.

Why would I even consider doing that I asked him and all he did was bail on the question by saying that I had to answer something first, that's not the game , I made a idiot out of him by putting him in the corner with the rest of the brain dead. and he can't respond. That's the story . he sells himself as all knowing on this subject so I asked him to enlighten us. I think everyone here knows he just a blowhard and can't back up what he says . It is a little stupid and revealing when someone comes and supports his bullshit, when it couldn't be clearer that hes trying to bullshit his way out a guest ion that he can't answer. I guess all liars stick together. Its kind of like stupid supporting stupid.

Why would you do it? Because I asked you to - and I'm a nice guy. (Stop the stupid personal attacks --- it just makes you look petty and childish)

Another reason - to establish your credibility - right now, you have NONE.

 

[rightwinger]

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.

"Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?

It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?

Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?

I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.

I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.

See...the thing is
The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests

All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.

Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace

Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.

Everything costs something.

You only have to decide whether you are willing to pay the price ...

How many Somali girls are you willing to sacrifice for that new stretch of road?

How many Iraqi refugees die so we can buy a bigger TV?

How many girls get raped in Pakistan so you can get a new car?

What's a steak worth? Three dead babies.

Everything costs something.

BTW - off the top of my head, I can think of 13 countries that maintain military facilities outside their borders. Just sayin' ...

Agree totally

With $700 billion a year going to our military, it becomes a question of priorities
I have spent 40 years buying equipment for the DoD and know how expensive it is and how it saves lives. We have the best military in the history of mankind

But at what costs?

Like you posted, our military has done some great things and done great humanitarian work. We have also made horrific blunders that cost needless lives and wasted trillions of dollars that could have been better spent at home

I saw the arguments over healthcare and how we cannot afford it. This at the same time we were engaged in two needless wars costing two trillion dollars

 

[9thIDdoc]

Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.

Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.

What part of:
You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader.
did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.

Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified . A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
corporate interest.
They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.

The "lying piece of shit" would be you. You challenge or ask me anything in 170.
On the contrary I asked you:

"What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"

I'm still waiting for answers.

Don't let brain dead bullshit you, He said This remark after I put it to him in the first case Obviously since he is responding to this"You want to know how bad this country has been as far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." So I asked him first obviously before he had asked one question of me. This guy is a liar and the biggest bullshitter here. Don't let sleazes like this off the hook , keep hammering the truth on these losers till they fricken disappear.

You stated: " Its all their in post 170." and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

 

[9thIDdoc]

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----

Components Funding Change, 2012 to 2013
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
Total Spending $610.096 billion -10.5%

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?

 

[rightwinger]

It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? YES
Do we need our current troop strength? NO - WE NEED MORE
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? NO -
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? YES
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? YES

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load

I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.

Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?

You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?

That, my friend, is the question

There is no difference

 

[9thIDdoc]

Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.