$2,000,000,000,000 defense budget?????

[BlueStreak]

Willard babbled something about increasing defense spending to two trillion last night, and it got me to thinking. Other than using defense spending to create jobs, which is really what it's all about.......

Do we really need it?

I say no.

Our military to is far to bloated as it is. It needs to be significantly pared down. It was built to defeat an enemy that went down a long time ago. Really, what needs to be done in the case of our military is that the effectiveness of it is what should be at issue, not the size of it. Even a huge military is useless, when it is not applied efficiently and effectively.

Because the ugly truth I have been pondering is that we have spent over ten years fighting a bunch of part-time goat herders and toothless poppy farmers and gotten exactly what for our troubles? Look at the mess that was Vietnam. It has been a long time since we have really fought one to win it, hasn't it?

Such a waste of lives.....American lives and thousands of them.

Also;

For those of you who have been sharing thoughts with me for a few years, or more;

What did I tell you?

I believe it was something along the lines of;

"If it's left up to the republicans we will choose to take from the people in order to feed the military machine."

Oh, we need to cut this and cut that...but, the military? Double it and then some............

I'm just sayin'.

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

I think the number is $2 Trillion increase over the next decade is Mitt were to get his way. Factoid - The US has 11 aircraft carriers and the remainder of the world has 10. I'm betting Mitt thinks we need 12-13 carriers with some newfangled, expensive planes on board that are unable to fly in a marine environment.

[piece-itpete]

Iirc to effectively cover the globe we need 11 or 12 carriers.

We've been down this path before. We (Americans) really don't like our post ww2 role of world cop. However the people at the top (including both parties) KNOW how effective we've been, for everyone really. Set the talk aside and look at the actions.

But 2 military actions have drained us, and the previous increase does cause bloat. But we don't want to get too low - there are serious, dead serious, issues clearly on the horizon. Be prepared.

I have no answer.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Iirc to effectively cover the globe we need 11 or 12 carriers.

We've been down this path before. We (Americans) really don't like our post ww2 role of world cop. However the people at the top (including both parties) KNOW how effective we've been, for everyone really. Set the talk aside and look at the actions.

But 2 military actions have drained us, and the previous increase does cause bloat. But we don't want to get too low - there are serious, dead serious, issues clearly on the horizon. Be prepared.

I have no answer.

Pete

We need to stop covering the globe.

[ebacon]

Pete,

What are the serious, dead serious, issues that are clearly on the horizon?

[JJIII]

We need to stop covering the globe.

If we don't, who will? It will be somebody... that's for sure. Who would you like to live under?

[bobabode]

If we don't, who will? It will be somebody... that's for sure. Who would you like to live under?

Roseanne?:D

[finnbow]

If we don't, who will? It will be somebody... that's for sure. Who would you like to live under?

Let Britannia rule the waves.:D

[icenine]

Let Britannia rule the waves.:D

That'sssssssssss so 19th Century!!!!!:D

[ebacon]

If we don't, who will? It will be somebody... that's for sure. Who would you like to live under?

The underlying theory of The New World Order/Globalism is that nations that rely on each other have less incentive to fight. Now that China is our largest trading partner and Russia is next in line under the BRIC initiative, what nation or situation is on our threat horizon that justifies continuing paying for a military that is breaking the bank?

Recall that at the beginning of The New World Order/Globalism movement we downsized our military and ended up with the peace dividend during the Clinton administration.

The neocons, in accordance with PNAC's position paper, disagreed with downsizing the military. Their position was that doing so squandered an opportunity for the US to be the sole superpower on the earthball.

In a twist of irony, being the sole superpower on the earthball gives enemy leaders the opportunity to stir their masses by painting the US as an imperialist nation. That is the kind of perception that makes us a target. PNAC admits it.

Given that, please tell us how we are supposed to simultaneously engage in free global trade while at the same time maintain our position as the sole global superpower. The former reduces the federal government's tax base through lower worker wages and lower tax rates on imported goods. The latter increases the federal government's spending on the military.

The design is structurally flawed. No?

[BlueStreak]

If we don't, who will? It will be somebody... that's for sure. Who would you like to live under?

I wouldn't mind being under Halle Berry......................:)

Our time trying to run the world is up and we should just let it go. Or, are you afraid the big, bad world will come rushing in and crush our "exceptionalism". Or, maybe it's already happening, and that's what all the whiney, bitchy fuss on the right is all about?

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

The underlying theory of The New World Order/Globalism is that nations that rely on each other have less incentive to fight. Now that China is our largest trading partner and Russia is next in line under the BRIC initiative, what nation or situation is on our threat horizon that justifies continuing paying for a military that is breaking the bank?

Recall that at the beginning of The New World Order/Globalism movement we downsized our military and ended up with the peace dividend during the Clinton administration.

The neocons, in accordance with PNAC's position paper, disagreed with downsizing the military. Their position was that doing so squandered an opportunity for the US to be the sole superpower on the earthball.

In a twist of irony, being the sole superpower on the earthball gives enemy leaders the opportunity to stir their masses by painting the US as an imperialist nation. That is the kind of perception that makes us a target. PNAC admits it.

Given that, please tell us how we are supposed to simultaneously engage in free global trade while at the same time maintain our position as the sole global superpower. The former reduces the federal government's tax base through lower worker wages and lower tax rates on imported goods. The latter increases the federal government's spending on the military.

The design is structurally flawed. No?

Excellent post and I am 110% in full concurrence, Mr. Ebacon.

Bravo, Old Boy!
Dave

[piece-itpete]

People think that somehow the world runs itself. The reality is we keep everything moving. We pull back and it is back to business as usual, regional empires built on force, piracy, worldwide recessions, mass starvasions, all kinds of bad things.

China is on the move. They have shown over and over that they don't give a crap about human rights etc, they will do as they see fit and once dominant may well even drop lip service to those things.

Exceptionalism? Consider that never has the primary power been eclipsed by a newer power without war.

This would be a lot simpler if Europe would help, but they've gotten used to us doing the heavy lifting while they sit back and feel superior. Maybe South American help? Russian? Perhaps it's even Africas' turn. Things never stay the same.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

People think that somehow the world runs itself. The reality is we keep everything moving. We pull back and it is back to business as usual, regional empires built on force, piracy, worldwide recessions, mass starvasions, all kinds of bad things.

China is on the move. They have shown over and over that they don't give a crap about human rights etc, they will do as they see fit and once dominant may well even drop lip service to those things.

Exceptionalism? Consider that never has the primary power been eclipsed by a newer power without war.

This would be a lot simpler if Europe would help, but they've gotten used to us doing the heavy lifting while they sit back and feel superior. Maybe South American help? Russian? Perhaps it's even Africas' turn. Things never stay the same.

Pete

So, you're saying we'll be invaded by stars on a massive scale. That is serious. We'll be burned to a cinder. OMG, we're being attacked by Alpha Centauri.....quick, coat yourself with SPF 90!!!!:eek:

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

LOL!!

It's Revelations!

6:13 The stars of heaven fell unto the earth

:D

Pete

[bobabode]

Dang Christians! Always tryin' to help Armegeddon along...:D

[ebacon]

People think that somehow the world runs itself. The reality is we keep everything moving. We pull back and it is back to business as usual, regional empires built on force, piracy, worldwide recessions, mass starvasions, all kinds of bad things.

China is on the move. They have shown over and over that they don't give a crap about human rights etc, they will do as they see fit and once dominant may well even drop lip service to those things.

Exceptionalism? Consider that never has the primary power been eclipsed by a newer power without war.

This would be a lot simpler if Europe would help, but they've gotten used to us doing the heavy lifting while they sit back and feel superior. Maybe South American help? Russian? Perhaps it's even Africas' turn. Things never stay the same.

Pete

Pete,

How much time have you spent outside of the USA, not including Canadian titty clubs?

[piece-itpete]

Only the British Isles, but quite a bit of time there. And as much as they're often that way they've still stood with us.

I also watch a lot of foreign news.

Pete

[ebacon]

So you spent time in the only European nation that also has an American-style right wing and you also watch a lot of TV. Great.

Given that, can you empathize with say Europeans outside of England or people from the Middle East? Do you have any experience working day-to-day with people from those regions? If so, why do you think that they will become pirates if we downsize our military just a little?

[piece-itpete]

Being half English I belong to British expatriate forums - there might be 1 out of thousand that comes close to an American right winger. They would laugh at that...

France 24 is my preferred news source. They're the best. I also watch BBC, RT, and a smattering of others.

It's a big bad world. I seriously doubt that say the Portuguese will become pirates.

Ask yourself, why do we have troops all over the world, by invitation, including in Europe?

Pete

[ebacon]

Being half English I belong to British expatriate forums - there might be 1 out of thousand that comes close to an American right winger. They would laugh at that...

France 24 is my preferred news source. They're the best. I also watch BBC, RT, and a smattering of others.

It's a big bad world. I seriously doubt that say the Portuguese will become pirates.

Ask yourself, why do we have troops all over the world, by invitation, including in Europe?

Pete

We have troops all over the world because of agreements that were made after WWII. Japan's constitution was rewritten to forbid it from having a military or waging war. We protect Japan in accordance with a treaty.

The German and Italian constitutions were also rewritten to limit their ability to war.

The US military also provides protection to foreign nations in accordance with the NATO agreement.

Non-NATO nations, mostly in the Arab peninsula region, work with the US military as Major non-NATO Allies. That means they let our military in so we spend money there.

Your assertion that "we have troops all over the world, by invitation, including in Europe" is simply a false assumption. We are in Europe because we won WWII and occupied Europe. Believe that there is a faction of Germans that are pissed about that occupation. We are in the middle east becasue of money. Believe that there is a faction middle-eastern people that are pissed about that occupation.

The notion that the world's citizens are begging to be saved by America is arrogant.

[piece-itpete]

Not begging. Our troops are a kind of guarenteeor of stability.

The EU has a bigger economy that the US now. Why don't we pull out? Why couldn't they take care of even little Bosnia let alone Libya?

I've always been interested in foreign policy. I read a quote a couple years ago that I think applies now, even though it was discussing England in the mid 1800s - They no longer understood the institutions they themselves had created.

Pete

[Boreas]

Not begging. Our troops are a kind of guarenteeor of stability.

We guaranteed the hell out of stability when we had troops in Saudi Arabia, didn't we? Our military presence around toe world is more a liability than an asset.

The EU has a bigger economy that the US now. Why don't we pull out?

In part because our presence in those countries is a boon to their economies.

Why couldn't they take care of even little Bosnia let alone Libya?

Well, in fact, they did participate in both those countries. That being said, their reluctance to do it without our participation was largely financial.

John

[ebacon]

I don't know, Pete. Why don't we pull out of Germany and Italy? What does your TV say?

And what makes you think that the US single handedly took care of Bosnia? Bosnia was a NATO operation. Do you think that the US is the only member of NATO?

And I don't know WTF you are talking about with Libya. As if Africa is ever stable.

[ebacon]

For the record we are pulling out of Germany and Italy. It's just not on Pete's TEEvee.

[bobabode]

We have troops all over the world because of agreements that were made after WWII. Japan's constitution was rewritten to forbid it from having a military or waging war. We protect Japan in accordance with a treaty.

The German and Italian constitutions were also rewritten to limit their ability to war.

The US military also provides protection to foreign nations in accordance with the NATO agreement.

Non-NATO nations, mostly in the Arab peninsula region, work with the US military as Major non-NATO Allies. That means they let our military in so we spend money there.

Your assertion that "we have troops all over the world, by invitation, including in Europe" is simply a false assumption. We are in Europe because we won WWII and occupied Europe. Believe that there is a faction of Germans that are pissed about that occupation. We are in the middle east becasue of money. Believe that there is a faction middle-eastern people that are pissed about that occupation.

The notion that the world's citizens are begging to be saved by America is arrogant.

Exactly. That is the problem, arrogance. The brief time that I visited Germany I ran into some of those Germans that are hot under the collar about our vast bases there. Once thety realized that my younger bruder and I were tourists and not military or CIA we were plyed with great bier and we argued about soccer.:D The damn Italians were winning the Cup at the time:rolleyes:,1986.

[piece-itpete]

I'd be perfectly fine with us pulling out of most of Europe. Why hasn't the C-in-C done it?

Oh yes, we're REDUCING troops there. Why have any? And did the German chancellor call you and tell you about it?

If we pull out of the ME gas would be $10 a gallon or more. It's be OK for us (in a horrible way), we're a rich country. Consider what that would mean to 3rd world countries. There would be mass starvation.

For some reason pointing out the reality of Pax Americana drives the isolationists crazy ;)

Pete

[JJIII]

We have troops all over the world because of agreements that were made after WWII. Japan's constitution was rewritten to forbid it from having a military or waging war. We protect Japan in accordance with a treaty.

The German and Italian constitutions were also rewritten to limit their ability to war.

The US military also provides protection to foreign nations in accordance with the NATO agreement.



All that sounds like we need to have a robust military.:confused:

[ebacon]

Pete,

I can't take your stupid assumptions anymore.

Gas in Europe is already near $10 a gallon and they are marketdly better off than OK in a horrible way, whatever the fuck that means. By your assessment of American star-spangled awesomeness we are less creative about how to work around high fuel prices than the Germans. How awesome is that?

And no the chancellor didn't call me. I work in Germany and see US base shrinkage firsthand.

Now get lost while I take a call from Beyonce. That's important.




It's clear that you live in a bubble lined with American flags. Enjoy your hole.

[ebacon]

All that sounds like we need to have a robust military.:confused:

Look into it more.

[Boreas]

I'd be perfectly fine with us pulling out of most of Europe. Why hasn't the C-in-C done it?

Oh yes, we're REDUCING troops there. Why have any? And did the German chancellor call you and tell you about it?

If we pull out of the ME gas would be $10 a gallon or more. It's be OK for us (in a horrible way), we're a rich country. Consider what that would mean to 3rd world countries. There would be mass starvation.

For some reason pointing out the reality of Pax Americana drives the isolationists crazy ;)

How would that happen, exactly, and how does our presence there prevent it?

John

[piece-itpete]

So, to be clear, we are coming to the conclusion that the US could unilaterally withdraw from the world with no repercussions?

Pete

[piece-itpete]

If there's a sneeze of trouble oil goes through the roof. A serious interruption in ME oil would cause serious issues. Surely we agree on that.

Pete

[Boreas]

If there's a sneeze of trouble oil goes through the roof. A serious interruption in ME oil would cause serious issues. Surely we agree on that.

Pete

Since our global military posture has never once prevented that, you have just destroyed your own argument.

Make me work, Pete! :rolleyes:

John

[ebacon]

So, to be clear, we are coming to the conclusion that the US could unilaterally withdraw from the world with no repercussions?

Pete

Jesus H Christ.

What the fuck is it with you guys taking the concept of reducing spending and then crashing it into a guardrail?

Reducing military spending by some percentage will not result in "unilaterally withdrawing from the world".

By the way, here is a chart that shows military spending percentage of personal income tax revenue over time. It shows the peace dividend up until 2000, and then the double whammy of Bush tax cuts/two wars after 2001.

The bottom line is that the military eats up all of our personal tax dollars. Remeber that that chart only shows published military spending. There is also secret spending.

http://tomwfox.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/defense__income_tx_1994-20.png?w=963

[piece-itpete]

So US troops in Saudi Arabia didn't keep Saddam from invading? Alright....

So the US navy doesn't keep the supertankers moving?

The planet is basically peaceful and we're the problem?

Pete

[Boreas]

So US troops in Saudi Arabia didn't keep Saddam from invading? Alright....

So the US navy doesn't keep the supertankers moving?

The planet is basically peaceful and we're the problem?

Pete

Pete, this is just plain stupid. I think you know it so that's all the answer you'll get from me.

John

[ebacon]

So US troops in Saudi Arabia didn't keep Saddam from invading? Alright....

So the US navy doesn't keep the supertankers moving?

The planet is basically peaceful and we're the problem?

Pete

Now you are just whining like a sarcastic bitch.

Of course the US military engages enemies. No one said that didn't. But the notion that the US does everything single-handedly is simply arrogant.

Oh look. German Navy helpig with shipping lanes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gcaptain/2011/09/30/german-navy-anti-piracy-gunship-takes-care-of-business-off-somalia-get-some/

Oh look. Spain helping with shipping lanes.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/somali-pirates-attack-spanish-warship-and-lose/

Oh look. Italy helping with shipping lanes.
http://news.yahoo.com/suspected-somali-pirates-fire-italian-navy-helicopter-115853770.html

On and on it goes.

[piece-itpete]

Unfortunately I am neither being sarcastic nor a bitch. If I was being sarcastic I would say that of course one should turn to personal attacks if their argument isn't holding up. If I was a bitch I wouldn't say it.

The Europeans have ships? I'm aghast. Warning - sarcasm alert: Thank goodness they took care of their own problems. Needs America To Operate.

To properly show percentages in income tax one needs to consider SS income, as it was being spent on general expenses. Now the it's pulling money back out the percentages are going to skew dramatically.

Pete

[ebacon]

Oh fuck it.

[piece-itpete]

My apologies to anyone who may be put off by my getting heated. I will no longer respond to insults, regardless.

Pete

[ebacon]

My apologies to anyone who may be put off by my getting heated. I will no longer respond to insults, regardless.

Pete

Typical Republican whining. You guys have no problem with sending American kids off to war to get their guts blown out, but God forbid someone thows a poopy word at you.

Fuck off.

[JJIII]

And here I am trying to get more people interested in joining this forum. I guess I'll have to rethink that.

[icenine]

Jesus H Christ.

What the fuck is it with you guys taking the concept of reducing spending and then crashing it into a guardrail?

Reducing military spending by some percentage will not result in "unilaterally withdrawing from the world".

By the way, here is a chart that shows military spending percentage of personal income tax revenue over time. It shows the peace dividend up until 2000, and then the double whammy of Bush tax cuts/two wars after 2001.

The bottom line is that the military eats up all of our personal tax dollars. Remeber that that chart only shows published military spending. There is also secret spending.

http://tomwfox.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/defense__income_tx_1994-20.png?w=963

Because Ebacon big government is ok when it comes to military expenditures and the social welfare system that takes care of the active duty, veterans and retired people associated with all those big aircraft carriers. Do not get me wrong I am one of those military retired DOD types myself. However, for some reason it is not ok for the government to protect Medicare and SS for everyone else, even though they themselves through their hard earned taxes are supporting the military-industrial complex. Does not compute.
Do not forget the huge big business and employment of all the federal workers and contractors either. We need to figure a way to preserve both guns and butter...if that is even possible.

[piece-itpete]

Ji it might be kinda tough :p I have been smacked by my mother from the great beyond and am being good :D

Here's a list of warships in service worldwide by country. I see it's not sourced btw. Still interesting.

The most interesting thing I see is, little Thailand has an aircraft carrier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_warships_in_service_worldwide

Pete

[icenine]

They have had an aircraft carrier for years at Sattahip...however, I do not believe they are capable of properly maintaining it. I think it may be tied to the pier. IIRC they bought it from France?

[finnbow]

I think the issue, Pete, is that the GOP somehow believes that ever-increasing Defense spending is sacrosanct, despite the masses amounts of waste and incompetence in the DoD (something I know all too well having worked for DoD here and abroad for twenty years).

Every single F-22 that still asphyxiates pilots cost the taxpayer $180 million, for example. Then there's the Osprey, the B-2 bomber, the F-35, the new Coast Guard cutter ...., each of which cost untold billions and don't work worth a chit.

As for us single-handedly keeping shipping lanes open, study this chart concerning anti-piracy efforts off of Somalia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia#Current_fleet_of_vessels_in_oper ation

As for our current presence in Germany, it is a mere shadow of its former self. Pretty much all of operations have been pared down to Wiesbaden and Kaiserslautern/Ramstein/Landstuhl. For the most part, these function serve as a rear echelon for our Mideast operations and having nothing to do with defending Germany from anything.

[Boreas]

Because Ebacon big government is ok when it comes to military expenditures and the social welfare system that takes care of the active duty, veterans and retired people associated with all those big aircraft carriers.

Not so much any more, Ice. We've really let our Iraq and Afghanistan vets down as a result of Republican (Tea Party) opposition.

John

[piece-itpete]

I've stated recently that we probably need some wastecutting particularly in light of the massive increases and 2 wars in the past 10 years. There's GOT to be bloat in there.

But the pendulum swings, sometimes too far, and I don't believe we should become isolationist either.

I read somewhere that a new car has more electronics than the 1970s-designed B2. I suspect though that the looks of it alone probably strike fear into our would be enemies' hearts.

I realise that our allies do contribute - some. I don't believe hunting ragtag pirates off Somolia creates global stability though!

I wondered why we're still in Germany, heck much of Europe. So it's because we use them for back staging? I didn't know that.

Pete

[finnbow]

I read somewhere that a new car has more electronics than the 1970s-designed B2. I suspect though that the looks of it alone probably strike fear into our would be enemies' hearts.

I realise that our allies do contribute - some. I don't believe hunting ragtag pirates off Somolia creates global stability though!

I wondered why we're still in Germany, heck much of Europe. So it's because we use them for back staging? I didn't know that.

Pete

The B-2 is fine as long as it's not used in hot, rainy or humid weather. I guess it would be fine if we were to invade Sweden.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html

A lot of our presence in Germany has to do with providing a first-class hospital for the wounded coming out of the Mideast to stabilize them before coming back to Walter Reed. There has been a load of coverage on this topic. This is what Kaiserslautern/Ramstein/Landstuhl is all about.

As for Wiesbaden, it is strictly a HQ function to coordinate with German forces. Other than that, there's a few folks at EUCOM in Stuttgart and a smattering elsewhere. Again, this presence has nothing to do with defending Germany anymore.

[Boreas]

I've stated recently that we probably need some wastecutting particularly in light of the massive increases and 2 wars in the past 10 years. There's GOT to be bloat in there.


Does that mean you're opposed to R$R's plan to give the DoD $2 billion they don't want (but, obviously, defense contractors do)?

John

[piece-itpete]

I thought it was 2 trillion? Before I decide I'd like to see a top to bottom assesment of our current and future needs. Personel costs particularly.

I suspect it's probably unneccessary but don't know.

Pete

[Boreas]

I thought it was 2 trillion? Before I decide I'd like to see a top to bottom assesment of our current and future needs. Personel costs particularly.

I suspect it's probably unneccessary but don't know.

Pete

The 2 trillion is total the budget, not the unwanted increase I referred to.

John

[icenine]

The B-2 is fine as long as it's not used in hot, rainy or humid weather. I guess it would be fine if we were to invade Sweden.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html

A lot of our presence in Germany has to do with providing a first-class hospital for the wounded coming out of the Mideast to stabilize them before coming back to Walter Reed. There has been a load of coverage on this topic. This is what Kaiserslautern/Ramstein/Landstuhl is all about.

As for Wiesbaden, it is strictly a HQ function to coordinate with German forces. Other than that, there's a few folks at EUCOM in Stuttgart and a smattering elsewhere. Again, this presence has nothing to do with defending Germany anymore.

You are correct....after the emergency medical treatment during the first 60 minutes after a casualty (the Golden Hour) the soldier would be flown to Germany lightning speed for definitive care.

[piece-itpete]

I see John. Still, I'd like to see the assesment.

The B-2 is fine as long as it's not used in hot, rainy or humid weather. I guess it would be fine if we were to invade Sweden.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html

A lot of our presence in Germany has to do with providing a first-class hospital for the wounded coming out of the Mideast to stabilize them before coming back to Walter Reed. There has been a load of coverage on this topic. This is what Kaiserslautern/Ramstein/Landstuhl is all about.

As for Wiesbaden, it is strictly a HQ function to coordinate with German forces. Other than that, there's a few folks at EUCOM in Stuttgart and a smattering elsewhere. Again, this presence has nothing to do with defending Germany anymore.

Well those dam Swedes HAVE been quite a problem :)

Thank's for the info on our presence in Germany.

Pete

[finnbow]

Believe it or not, a lot of the military infrastructure we (and the Pentagon) still support has a lot to do with finding places to give all the generals a command. Really. After all, what's a general without something to command? Between the Army, Air Force and Marines (not including the Navy which doesn't need a fixed location for a command), we have ~500 active duty generals.

[piece-itpete]

We'll need to invade a lot more than Sweden!

Pete

[bobabode]

We'll need to invade a lot more than Sweden!

Pete

You're just being gracious. Whell could learn a thing or two from you Pete.;)

[piece-itpete]

I'm trying to find common ground :D

Believe you me, :), I'm 100% for top to bottom reform of every department in government.

Pete

[bobabode]

I'm trying to find common ground :D

Believe you me, :), I'm 100% for top to bottom reform of every department in government.

Pete

Wall St. too....

[piece-itpete]

Maybe we can find divergent ground lol. Deriviatives still aren't required reporting, let alone any kind of regulation, if I'm correct?

Pete

[icenine]

Believe it or not, a lot of the military infrastructure we (and the Pentagon) still support has a lot to do with finding places to give all the generals a command. Really. After all, what's a general without something to command? Between the Army, Air Force and Marines (not including the Navy which doesn't need a fixed location for a command), we have ~500 active duty generals.

Since Military retirement pay is calculated at 50% of the average of the highest three years of active duty pay a retired general must be getting at least $6000-$7000 a month....many serve well over 20 years and if one retires at at 30 years one gets 75% percent of their base pay. For a general that is one golden parachute.

http://www.navycs.com/2012-military-pay-chart.html

Of course that is one entitlement the Republicans will not say anyting about .

[bobabode]

I'm all for cutting waste. Just not the way Grover does it. Obama said he had $4 trillion in cost cutting up on his website, I'll have to look into it. Gotta go check the pies before Patty takes a rolling pin to my noggin...:D

[piece-itpete]

Why do the Dems want to take away the generals' well earned retirement? :p

Pete

[icenine]

Why do the Dems want to take away the generals' well earned retirement? :p

Pete

I do not think anyone has ever come out for cutting military retirement pay. Do you?

And it is much more difficult for the average enlisted guy to retire these days...they have been forcing out people at 10-16 years if they are deemed to be superfluous. Many of them Iraq and Afganistan veterans. No retirement for those people....

[piece-itpete]

Chain - yanking it :)

But retirement or not, it seems there are lifelong benifits to being a vet.

I didn't join because I wanted to fly a helecopter and they refused me because I wore glasses. 'Damn my eyes!'

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ORoOUWG_Zys/TvqXOqB_5HI/AAAAAAAADMo/h3sSQQYPrRc/s1600/igor+young+frankenstein.png

Pete

[Boreas]

I do not think anyone has ever come out for cutting military retirement pay. Do you?

And it is much more difficult for the average enlisted guy to retire these days...they have been forcing out people at 10-16 years if they are deemed to be superfluous. Many of them Iraq and Afganistan veterans. No retirement for those people....

Stop lossed if you want out.

Kicked out if you want a career.

Figures.

John

[Boreas]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ORoOUWG_Zys/TvqXOqB_5HI/AAAAAAAADMo/h3sSQQYPrRc/s1600/igor+young+frankenstein.png

Pete

I!...... ain't got no body!"

John

[BlueStreak]

Chain - yanking it :)

But retirement or not, it seems there are lifelong benifits to being a vet.

I didn't join because I wanted to fly a helecopter and they refused me because I wore glasses. 'Damn my eyes!'

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ORoOUWG_Zys/TvqXOqB_5HI/AAAAAAAADMo/h3sSQQYPrRc/s1600/igor+young+frankenstein.png

Pete

There are. My sister gets VA Healthcare benefits, (Eight years, Navy.). But, she had to means test for financial hardship to get it.

At $62k this year, and close to a quarter million in savings*......I'm too rich.:cool:

(When I heard Limbaugh advising his lemmings to hide their money 'cuz Obama was going to destroy the economy, I invested more. I find if the dittoheads are buying it, it HAS to be wrong.;))

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

That did it. Drinks ARE on you!

I'll have a tall Guiness and a double of Petron. Tell that barmaid make sure she pulls that beer right!

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Sorry, man. Gotta make a car payment.

[piece-itpete]

Damn. Barkeep, I'll have a Genessee :(

Pete

[icenine]

Stop lossed if you want out.

Kicked out if you want a career.

Figures.

John

It is really hard on someone who has done 14 years and only has 6 to go for a retirement....these are good kids too, not bad apples....there is some talk about newer enlistees getting a 401k instead of a retirement like we did.
I have not kept up.

[icenine]

There are. My sister gets VA Healthcare benefits, (Eight years, Navy.). But, she had to means test for financial hardship to get it.

At $62k this year, and close to a quarter million in savings*......I'm too rich.:cool:

(When I heard Limbaugh advising his lemmings to hide their money 'cuz Obama was going to destroy the economy, I invested more. I find if the dittoheads are buying it, it HAS to be wrong.;))

Regards,
Dave

Is that how it really works? I was thinking an honorable discharge would let you in the system....they means test you? I would really double check but I did not know that.....

[bobabode]

That did it. Drinks ARE on you!

I'll have a tall Guiness and a double of Petron. Tell that barmaid make sure she pulls that beer right!

Pete

Petron? Is that something they're serving in New Orleans (courtesy of BP)?:D
I think you meant El Patron. It's Ok but Sauza's "Tres Generations Anejo" (black bottle, aged eight years) kicks the crap outta it. Sippin' tequila there...:)MmmmMmm, good. It better be at $45 a bottle, $35 bucks in Tijuana-damn NAFTA! It used to be half the US price.:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Damn. Barkeep, I'll have a Genessee :(

Pete

See? Now you're trying to make me feel sorry for you! It won't work, Pete.

Enjoy your Genny....I'm reaching for a New Belgium Trippel.:D

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Is that how it really works? I was thinking an honorable discharge would let you in the system....they means test you? I would really double check but I did not know that.....

Yes. She had to refile just a few days ago.

[wgrr]

I defer to the founding fathers as all good teabaggers should.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/the-founding-fathers-warned-against-standing-armies.html

The bigger problem we face is lobsters.

Not on this clip, but it was introduced in the most sophisticated PBS Masterpiece Theater intro as a reading of Dostoevsky's "The Idiot".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9cBc-TQESI

This is why we need at least 15 aircraft carriers equipped with lemons and butter.

[piece-itpete]

Petron? Is that something they're serving in New Orleans (courtesy of BP)?:
I think you meant El Patron. It's Ok but Sauza's "Tres Generations Anejo" (black bottle, aged eight years) kicks the crap outta it. Sippin' tequila there...:MmmmMmm, good. It better be at $45 a bottle, $35 bucks in Tijuana-damn NAFTA! It used to be half the US price.:rolleyes:

Yikes! Though I tend to stay away from tokillya nowadays :)

See? Now you're trying to make me feel sorry for you! It won't work, Pete.

Enjoy your Genny....I'm reaching for a New Belgium Trippel.:D

Dave

Darn lefties grumble grumble. Redistribution!! :D

I defer to the founding fathers as all good teabaggers should.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/the-founding-fathers-warned-against-standing-armies.html

The bigger problem we face is lobsters.

Not on this clip, but it was introduced in the most sophisticated PBS Masterpiece Theater intro as a reading of Dostoevsky's "The Idiot".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9cBc-TQESI

This is why we need at least 15 aircraft carriers equipped with lemons and butter.

I agree, but technology means a standing army is a neccessary evil.

Pete

[ebacon]

I agree, but technology means a standing army is a neccessary evil.

Pete

Few people diagree with that. Where we disagree is the size and role of that army.

Suppose our military budget is 10x the size of the next biggest military on the earthball. Would you be willing to make it say, 9x the size?

[piece-itpete]

Again I'll say, as long as it fits our needs.

It's one of my dissapointments with Obama and I'm not just saying that. Even though I didn't want him to win his campaign was very exciting and I suspect many held their breath waiting to see what he would do.

I thought he'd start government department audits right away with the military and interior close to the top. I would have applauded this.

Pete

[ebacon]

Auditing the military is pointless. It's too big and the people with the real information will just lie anyway.

I remember doing an audit at a major automaker. One of the assets we had to find was an HVAC system for the research building. Since we could not find the asset tag the HVAC system was technicly missing.

Tricks like that are called "work to rules" strikes. Management can do it during an audit just as well as unions can during work days.

The only way to absolutely control the military budget is by purse strings. Of course they will push back and say there is a boogie man around the corner.

[finnbow]

Audit DoD? That's a funny one, Pete. DoD is a $750 billion/year enterprise. Audits are only as good as the auditors and the scope of the audit. Something that massive (to include the entire contracting world supporting DoD) is simply un-auditable. How successful were the big accounting firms' audits of Wall St. miscreants, BTW (tiny companies in comparison)?

[Combwork]

Let Britannia rule the waves.:D

Har bloody har. Line 2 "Britons never never never will be slaves"

I've lost track of who said what but as to the bit about covering the world would anyone want to? Why would they want to?

Islam's the current target to have a go at (justifiably in my opinion) but there will be others, there's always an 'other', a next in line vying for the right to carry the crown. Or the cannon. They're interchangeable really. I wonder which weighs the most, cannon or crown.

[piece-itpete]

eb, finn, I get that, but - do nothing? That strikes me as something seriously amiss.

Pete

[finnbow]

eb, finn, I get that, but - do nothing? That strikes me as something seriously amiss.

Pete

How about "starving the beast?" The GOP seems to find that an appropriate tactic for all other profligate spenders of tax money.

[Combwork]

People think that somehow the world runs itself. The reality is we keep everything moving. We pull back and it is back to business as usual, regional empires built on force, piracy, worldwide recessions, mass starvasions, all kinds of bad things.

China is on the move. They have shown over and over that they don't give a crap about human rights etc, they will do as they see fit and once dominant may well even drop lip service to those things.

Exceptionalism? Consider that never has the primary power been eclipsed by a newer power without war.

This would be a lot simpler if Europe would help, but they've gotten used to us doing the heavy lifting while they sit back and feel superior. Maybe South American help? Russian? Perhaps it's even Africas' turn. Things never stay the same.

Pete

Briton's in Europe. I reckon we've done our fair share of heavy lifting. Maybe you're referring to the European Union; the cake that's been left out in the rain.

[piece-itpete]

I've said often that the Brits have our back :) Me Gran wasn't very fond of the Continent. To put it mildly! :eek:

Pete

[ebacon]

eb, finn, I get that, but - do nothing? That strikes me as something seriously amiss.

Pete

We didn't say "do nothing". Why do you have to take every reasonable statement and crash it?

What we said was:

1) Auditing the military is pointless. As finn pointed out, the military is a giant operation. Auditing it would grind it to a halt. Even then the accuracy of the audit would be questionable. Educated managers are pretty good at playing numbers games.

2) The best way to control military spending is to control the purse strings.

Here's an example of an audit of a subset of the military, namely funds to rebuild Iraq. What would you do with this audit information?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10774002

[piece-itpete]

I don't see saying that we can't even attempt an audit of a major government department as reasonable! YU no agree with me? ;)

The Iraqi funds? I would start with, "significant archival retrieval efforts".

Pete

[icenine]

Pete wants small government but a 12 carrier Navy to rule the world. You cannot have a small government and be the Arsenal for Democracy at the same time. Sort of like having a Corvette with a three cylinder Geo-Metro engine under the hood.

[piece-itpete]

The military is 100% a federal prerogitive.... one of the core responsibilities of the feds.

If we pull back from the world the great recession would look like a romp in the park.

Pete

[Boreas]

The military is 100% a federal prerogitive.... one of the core responsibilities of the feds.

If we pull back from the world the great recession would look like a romp in the park.

Pete

So, what you're saying is that our economy is so enmeshed in the MIC that a cutback in military spending would destroy our economy? We have to continue to pump out, use, sell and replace weapons of war if we wish to survive and prosper? Are you okay with that?

John

[piece-itpete]

No, that the disruptions in international trade including but not limited to oil supplies would be disasterous.

Pete

[ebacon]

No, that the disruptions in international trade including but not limited to oil supplies would be disasterous.

Pete

What if the budget was cut so that the military stayed in shipping channels.

Woudl you agree to cutting the budget for electronic boxes that listen for gunshots and indicate a best guess which direction they came from? Infantryman can generally hear which direction a gunshot came from, no?

[piece-itpete]

I would agree for sure on things non essential to their mission.

Pete

[finnbow]

I would agree for sure on things non essential to their mission.

Pete

Like the Iraq War and a fleet of airplanes that can't fly or get wet?

[piece-itpete]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.pn g/800px-H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.pn g

Pete

[Boreas]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.pn g/800px-H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.pn g

Pete

The takeaway here is that, despite the Bush administration cooking the intelligence they showed to Congress and despite their just plain lying, a sizable number of Democrats in both houses refused to get sucked in. On the other hand, Republicans marched lock-step into oblivion.

Thanks for posting that, Pete.

John

[piece-itpete]

I live to serve :bow:

Pete

[finnbow]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.pn g/800px-H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.pn g

Pete

FWIW, the Maine's sinking and the Gulf of Tonkin incident had similar results on Capitol Hill.

[ebacon]

I don't see saying that we can't even attempt an audit of a major government department as reasonable! YU no agree with me? ;)

The Iraqi funds? I would start with, "significant archival retrieval efforts".

Pete

It's certainly possible to audit portions of the military as the Iraw rebuilding audit shows.

But auditing the entire military? Good googly woogly.

I think the government tried to audit itself back in the 1970s. It ended up as a fiasco because the auditors were milking the government. Then the government had to hire auditors to audit the auditors.

I'm not kidding.

Significant archival retrieval efforts are not a legitimate hurdle to a single audit. There are people that are experts at significant archival retrieval. Just not enough to do the entire military at once.

[piece-itpete]

Get a timeline, a project schedule, anything. Do a teenie piece. Look what Truman did regarding waste.

Maybe we need to dig Hoover up, he was very good at pulling in experts from outside government. Hoover/Truman 2012? :)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

So, what you're saying is that our economy is so enmeshed in the MIC that a cutback in military spending would destroy our economy? We have to continue to pump out, use, sell and replace weapons of war if we wish to survive and prosper? Are you okay with that?

John

And this was the crux of Ikes warning, and also why allowing the tail to wag the dog when it comes to the military is so dangerous.

The military is supposed to serve the nation, not the other way around.

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

. . . Look what Truman did regarding waste. . .

I think we throw enough money away already, don't you? :D

http://www.truref.com/

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

Pete

[icenine]

Pete sounds like your for skewing all of our resources toward National Defense at the expense of everything else.....I see now. The money the government cuts from Medicare and Medicaid can go toward the big aircraft carriers.

If you think about it that was why there were food and consumer shortages in the old Soviet Union. In fact you had to get a voucher to get toilet paper (read The Russians by Hedrick Smith) and wait in long lines. Maybe the Tea Party will voucherize everything else...

Is this what all this talk about taking America back means? The Soviets were good about taking care of their military...well everything else not so much

[BlueStreak]

Pete sounds like your for skewing all of our resources toward National Defense at the expense of everything else.....I see now. The money the government cuts from Medicare and Medicaid can go toward the big aircraft carriers.

If you think about it that was why there were food and consumer shortages in the old Soviet Union. In fact you had to get a voucher to get toilet paper (read The Russians by Hedrick Smith) and wait in long lines. Maybe the Tea Party will voucherize everything else...

Is this what all this talk about taking America back means? The Soviets were good about taking care of their military...well everything else not so much

Exactly.

[icenine]

Exactly.

I guess the Soviet empire left behind old Russian tubes for the 50 or so of us who buy them for old tube amp proejcts..not a total loss;)

[BlueStreak]

Better than that, they left the factories that made them. So we can make more.

[Boreas]

I guess the Soviet empire left behind old Russian tubes for the 50 or so of us who buy them for old tube amp proejcts..not a total loss;)

The way I heard it, the Sovs used tubes in all their critical electronics because the electro-magnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation fries solid state gear.http://www.pic4ever.com/images/electricf.gif I think they also made some pretty righteous hi-fi tube amps and preamps, solid state too, a lot of them built for sort of a black market by military and defense technicians.

Oh, cool! Here's an AK thread.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=432394

KHOROSHO!

John

[Bigerik]

One early point to clarify....

China is not the biggest trading partner of the US. CANADA is. By about 20%, last time I checked.

[Bigerik]

This is the one area that always drives me nuts. The Republicans jump up and down about lending money to GM, and actually owning shares of it temporarily, while making the ultimate form of corporate welfare by keeping the Military Industrial complex rolling along.

The one funny thing is that the US military industrial complex has not provided, for the huge sums of money it has taken, is the best weapons. Other countries have done just as well, for MUCH less money, than the US has. Crap, it took the US more than two decades to build a fighter that was better than the Canadian CF-105 Arrow. Thank God Ike's boys strong-armed the Canadian government into pulling it out of production before the true colour of the emperors new clothes could be seen.

So it seems the Republicans are totally willing to support industry with government (public) money, support a ton of workers, give lots of benefits and medical care, etc. if it is for the "right" cause.

[piece-itpete]

Military cutbacks (not necessarily money cuts) are not a zero sum game. The left likes to pretend that the world economic system runs itself.

Pete

[Boreas]

Military cutbacks (not necessarily money cuts) are not a zero sum game. The left likes to pretend that the world economic system runs itself.

Pete

Pete, that is complete horse shit. You've actually described the Objectivist/Libertarian view. The Left is much more inclined toward the opposite, cooperative organizations like G8.

John

[piece-itpete]

Without teeth those organisations might as well be the UN, or maybe the EU ;)

Pete

[Boreas]

Without teeth those organisations might as well be the UN, or maybe the EU ;)

Pete

The extent to which they don't have teeth is the result of conservative and neo-liberal factions in the member states resisting enforcement provisions of the various agreements. Again, Pete, it's the Right that seeks to do away with regulated trade and economies. Why not just admit that you're mistaken and move on.

John

[piece-itpete]

Look carefully at who expouses withdrawal. Although it's been my experience that it's one thing the far right and far left agree upon.

Pete

[Bigerik]

We didn't spend on the military up here because the US effectively made Canada a protectorate.

The US deprived of us of our own military industry, so instead of being strong and independent and protecting the northern flank of the US, and keeping the North Atlantic open, we got strong armed by the US and effectively said screw it, let the Yanks do it.

There was a point when Canada had the third largest navy in the world, complete with aircraft carriers, as well as the most high tech aviation industry in the world.

We were happy to do, and pay, our part. But America wanted it all its way, so you guys can bankrupt yourself paying for it now.

[BlueStreak]

Without teeth those organisations might as well be the UN, or maybe the EU ;)

Pete

If they had teeth, then the right would be screaming about them threatening our sovereignty.....................Oh, wait...............yeah, we're already there.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

We didn't spend on the military up here because the US effectively made Canada a protectorate.

The US deprived of us of our own military industry, so instead of being strong and independent and protecting the northern flank of the US, and keeping the North Atlantic open, we got strong armed by the US and effectively said screw it, let the Yanks do it.

There was a point when Canada had the third largest navy in the world, complete with aircraft carriers, as well as the most high tech aviation industry in the world.

We were happy to do, and pay, our part. But America wanted it all its way, so you guys can bankrupt yourself paying for it now.

A large part of the world sees it the same way. Hence our trillion dollar+ defense budget.

Should we call it "military welfare"? I kinda like the sound of that.

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

If they had teeth, then th eright would be screaming about them threatening our sovereignty.....................Oh, wait...............yeah, we're already there.

Regards,
Dave

I would have no problem if the EU would step up to the plate and pay their fair share. And they want bilateralism? If we pay, we decide.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I would have no problem if the EU would step up to the plate and pay their fair share. And they want bilateralism? If we pay, we decide.

Pete

Why should they, when we insist on doing it for them?

After all, the savages can't be trusted.....right?:rolleyes:

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

I would have no problem if the EU would step up to the plate and pay their fair share. And they want bilateralism? If we pay, we decide.

Pete

The Europeans paid at least their fair share in liberating Libya and all the GOP could do is squawk about "leading from behind." Can't have it both ways, Pete.

[piece-itpete]

We charged them by the bomb, or sortie, or both?

Besides, Libya is a drop in the bucket. I wonder how much it costs to keep a carrier going for 1 day.

For the record I didn't say they do nothing at all. Just not their share. Heck they couldn't even take care of little Bosnia.

Pete

[Bigerik]

We charged them by the bomb, or sortie, or both?

Besides, Libya is a drop in the bucket. I wonder how much it costs to keep a carrier going for 1 day.

For the record I didn't say they do nothing at all. Just not their share. Heck they couldn't even take care of little Bosnia.

Pete

But you don't want them as allies. You want them as subservient providers of military units. When France, rightfully so, called BS on Powells presentation in the UN about the Iraq invasion, the whole, stupid Freedom Fries fiasco happened. Of course, the French were right and it was a crock of shit. I don't recall any official apologies then.

You can't have it both ways. You can have allies, or have slaves, but you can't have both.

[piece-itpete]

It's a cold hard world out there. If they want a place at the table they'll have to earn it - they need to put their money where their mouth is.

Pete

[Bigerik]

It's a cold hard world out there. If they want a place at the table they'll have to earn it - they need to put their money where their mouth is.

Pete

You're the one bitching and moaning about them. So how do they earn the place at the table? Making up stories about countries and then illegally occupying them? Well, the Germans and Russians have earned their spots.

Btw, what countries aren't doing the job?

[finnbow]

It's a cold hard world out there. If they want a place at the table they'll have to earn it - they need to put their money where their mouth is.

Pete

The French already have a seat at the table, Pete, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It was the French at the forefront of the Libya liberation.

[piece-itpete]

Look at the % of GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Folks say we (the US) are empirical, or arrogant, and spend too much on our military. However the world doesn't run itself, so in order for us to pull back we'd need help.

That's why I say, 'they' need to put their money where their mouth is. It's the only solution that we'd all want. See? :)

Pete

[finnbow]

Look at the % of GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Folks say we (the US) are empirical, or arrogant, and spend too much on our military. However the world doesn't run itself, so in order for us to pull back we'd need help.

That's why I say, 'they' need to put their money where their mouth is. It's the only solution that we'd all want. See? :)

Pete

Somehow, you seem to think there's a magic number of money that needs to be spent for the military across the world. I would offer that a significant portion of US military expenditures are against threats that no longer even exist. We still spend untold billions on weapons systems designed for an all-out multi-front war against the Soviets on land, on the seas, in the air and in space.

[Bigerik]

Look at the % of GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Folks say we (the US) are empirical, or arrogant, and spend too much on our military. However the world doesn't run itself, so in order for us to pull back we'd need help.

That's why I say, 'they' need to put their money where their mouth is. It's the only solution that we'd all want. See? :)

Pete

How did the world run itself before the US existed?

Who does the US plan to use the 5000+ nuclear warheads currently in th inventory against?

[Bigerik]

Somehow, you seem to think there's a magic number of money that needs to be spent for the military across the world. I would offer that a significant portion of US military expenditures are against threats that no longer even exist. We still spend untold billions on weapons systems designed for an all-out multi-front war against the Soviets on land, on the seas, in the air and in space.

I think the world would be a safer place if the US spent more money on keeping itself on the forefront of science and technology, rather than pissing it away on military adventures. I'd like to see a good, strong US of A innovating and looking after its own people.

The US didn't rise to its position as the preeminent world power because of military might. It happened because of industrial might. That is now being pissed away to China.

[piece-itpete]

Before our Gladstone-y-ish economic empirical system? Big knockdown dragout wars reliably often.

Really we keep coming back to a complete top to bottom review.

Pete

[Bigerik]

Before our Gladstone-y-ish economic empirical system? Big knockdown dragout wars reliably often.

Really we keep coming back to a complete top to bottom review.

Pete

But the last one bankrupted the European states that caused most of those wars, and deprived thm of their will to fight, while US aid created a super power out of one.