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

[9thIDdoc]

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

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

Sez you. Most of us know better.

 

[rightwinger]

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

$700 billion a year

We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year

 

[jbander]

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' ...

Here's the ultimate comedy act, he's talking about people that him and his hate party percieve as being dirt. This bullshitter will go anywhere to prove something , he is made of the same scum that his president Scum Bag is made of.

 

[jbander]

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?

Ya as a Allie . Russia's Scum bag is exactly made of the same stuff our scum bag is made of , they will both be gone Our Scum bag faster then their scum bag,

 

[jbander]

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.

Beautiful now I buried this clown also, , There is not way he can sell his bullshit with these facts screwing his brain to pieces, 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

 

[jbander]

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

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

Sez you. Most of us know better.

now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL

 

[jbander]

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

$700 billion a year

We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year

Hell we could get by with 100 billion. for the next 20 years until we got rid of the junk that is such a waste of money now. Our technology and 30 billion more then Russia spends and our closest Allies that spend 200 billion a year,Russia isn't in the same ballpark.It just a laugh to think that they are.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

$700 billion a year

We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year

And you would still bitch that we were spending too much.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... 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

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

Sez you. Most of us know better.

now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL

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?

 

[MikeK]

I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- the draft. America was a better, and a safer, place when the majority of its male citizens (its men) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive. Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men. Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience. This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.

Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army. A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.

 

[Natural Citizen]

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars.

So, rob the tax payers then? Print the money and monetize the debt with an inflation tax? Do you know what happens when you do that? I'll tell you what happens. You continue to debase the dollar and you continue to wipe out the poor, middle class, and senior citizens. That's what.

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.

Your wars are unconstitutional. It is illegal aggression. It is iIlegal occupation. When's the last time congress actually made a declaration of war like the constitution states we do? And, again, the federal government doesn't have any funds. The federal government does not produce anything. So, how can it 'have' anything? We're 21 trillion dollars in debt.

And I don't want to trim down of the government programs. I want to end them gradually.

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".

Actually, we have more than 900 bases. I'm the only one being honest in our dicussion. There's nothing misleading about it. Nothing. Why don't we mind out own god damned business? Ever think of that? We're the ones who are invading and illegally occupying nations abroad. And no declaration of war against any of these nations as the consitution demands. We're blowing up bridges abroad just to turn around and rob the taxpayers to rebuild what was just blown up. We're building embassys abroud that are bigger than the vatican. It's waste. How many foreign bases do we have on our own borders? I don't see any. Do you?

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.

Bull pucky. It's taxpayer dollars and it's waste.

Bring our troops home and build bases here. That's defense spending. Hell, I'd have more bases here than we do abroad.

What many so called 'conservatives' tend to forget is that there is a difference between military spending and defense spending. And so called 'conservatives' tend to forget that we're broke. They don't understand that each time we print money which is backed by nothing at all and turn around and monetize that debt at the expense of the taxpayer via inflation tax, that we're wiping out the midddle class and poor Americans as well as seniors. And it's devaluing our dollar. Right now the dollar is worth 4 cents compared to 1950. And it's only going to get worse. Eventually it'll crash. Guaranteed. Which is why we're seeing other nations creating such things as the asian and brics banks.

And I'll tell you something about oil, too. I saw you mention that somewhere. Any real conservative who understands conservatism and actually sticks to his principles would conserve natural resources, too. Let the price of oil rise to its natural price so we can move onto cleaner means. But do you know why we don't do that? Wars. That's why. Oil is an excuse to continually print money and rob the taxpayers to create the illusion of covering the debt and justify the emperialism abroad. Bring the troops home, build bases here, and let oil rise to its natural price so we can move on to something else a little more 'conservative.'

 

[rightwinger]

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

$700 billion a year

We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year

Hell we could get by with 100 billion. for the next 20 years until we got rid of the junk that is such a waste of money now. Our technology and 30 billion more then Russia spends and our closest Allies that spend 200 billion a year,Russia isn't in the same ballpark.It just a laugh to think that they are.

In terms of defending our shores, we could get by on $100 billion

The other $600 billion is defending corporate interests

 

[rightwinger]

I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- the draft. America was a better, and a safer, place when the majority of its male citizens (its men) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive. Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men. Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience. This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.

Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army. A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.

We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there

 

[rightwinger]

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

$700 billion a year

We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year

And you would still bitch that we were spending too much.

I'm OK with us being the most powerful military

I just question why we need to be three times the most powerful

 

[MikeK]

We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there

If they want to be there they are psychologically defective. They are paid to be there, which is the definition of a mercenary army.

 

[rightwinger]

We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there

If they want to be there they are psychologically defective. They are paid to be there, which is the definition of a mercenary army.

What makes someone who volunteers to serve his country psychologically defective?

 

[Natural Citizen]

I just question why we need to be three times the most powerful

They're establishing an economic occupation for when the military occupation has ended. They're establishing bases for the interests of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.

 

[rightwinger]

I just question why we need to be three times the most powerful

They're establishing an economic occupation for when the military occupation has ended. They're establishing bases for the interests of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.

You are a total moron

 

[Natural Citizen]

And thank your lucky stars the TPP didn't pass. Because then you'd have had a sitting president with unlimited, unchecked, power and you would have had private international courts where western nations could actually sue foreign nations for objecting to us setting up camp in their country and pillaging their natural resources in the interests of private companies who have a revolving door with the federal government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You are a total moron

I'm correct. That's what I am.