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

BlueStreak · #1 10-04-2012, 08:33 AM

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 · #2 10-04-2012, 09:25 AM

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 · #3 10-04-2012, 09:59 AM

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 · #4 10-04-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

We need to stop covering the globe.

ebacon · #5 10-04-2012, 04:42 PM

Pete,

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

JJIII · #6 10-04-2012, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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 · #7 10-04-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

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

Roseanne?

finnbow · #8 10-04-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

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.

icenine · #9 10-04-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let Britannia rule the waves.

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

ebacon · #10 10-04-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

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?