US committed to record defense spending at 750 billion

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: face23785

Late reply but after desert storm Iraq was weakened big time.

Iraq bad because they invaded, US invading = good and right, right?

They could have done an invasion there already easily after desert storm. Back then they where wise enough not doing that because well.. just using Dick words:

Yet Dick supported the war after, even he knew it just meant ''hell breaks loose''. It for sure did so after.

And all that spending on those wars costed trillions (&still growing)! Money well spend, yet they (the people) get upset about social programs & the ''left'' and put the blame all there. LOL. Ever since right after 9-11 & the actions the US made after you must have been really poor sighted or completely blind not seeing right there the US went in a full blown downward spiral without a change of recovery.

That's some awful fine mental gymnastics to deflect from the colossal screw up you made.

As far as the wars costing so much, it's simple numbers. The U.S. federal budget is over 50% social programs, between 15-20% defense, depending on the year. That's defense total, of which the wars are only a part. It's a fact that the social programs drive our debt, not the wars. Numbers don't care about your preferred narrative.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: face23785

Late reply but after desert storm Iraq was weakened big time.

Iraq bad because they invaded, US invading = good and right, right?

They could have done an invasion there already easily after desert storm. Back then they where wise enough not doing that because well.. just using Dick words:

The war over there costed trillions! Look how much the debt grew after those wars.
The overspending started after those wars. Just look it up.


Yet Dick supported the war after, even he knew it just meant ''hell breaks loose''. It for sure did so after.

And all that spending on those wars costed trillions (&still growing)! Money well spend, yet they (the people) get upset about social programs & the ''left'' and put the blame all there. LOL. Ever since right after 9-11 & the actions the US made after you must have been really poor sighted or completely blind not seeing right there the US went in a full blown downward spiral without a change of recovery.

That's some awful fine mental gymnastics to deflect from the colossal screw up you made.

As far as the wars costing so much, it's simple numbers. The U.S. federal budget is over 50% social programs, between 15-20% defense, depending on the year. That's defense total, of which the wars are only a part. It's a fact that the social programs drive our debt, not the wars. Numbers don't care about your preferred narrative.

The fact is with those wars ever since spending when up sky high! those wars costed TRILLIONS!! And the normal defense spending is yes about 700-800 billion/year.

The US is about consumption and the government has grown itself in the biggest job provider by far, and defense/the military has grown into a very large contributor of that.
The US needs tensions and wars and lots of propaganda, they need Russia as an enemy so they can sell more weapons and have control (&sell gass to Europe (& again weapons) which its getting hurt more and more and when the US gets more in debt (very fast!!!). Just look how fast the debt is growing, it's pretty insane. Just with Obama it almost doubled in just 8 years (&even growing faster with Trump) Ever since those wars the US went into a debt spiral and for what gains!? They sanctions any country they want for their own pleasure and control and countless people/country's suffering for that.
Now China as well is the enemy with their so called spying and such/unfair competition, of course brands like Huawei got such killer phones, hard to resist for any consumer, for sure US/Apple can't compete with that. So they have to fight that ''unfair'' competition!

The US is for sure the biggest guy on the block with spying worldwide, even their own people.

We got a saying wich is about (always hard to translate correctly); as the host (owner from a cafe) is himself , he trusts his guests. That is the US today in world matters.

a reply to: Pluginn

What the wars cost, domestic spending costs over twice as much more. It's an indisputable fact that domestic spending and social programs account for the majority of the debt. No amount of kicking and screaming will change that.

a reply to: face23785

www.zerohedge.com...

November outlays surged 18.4% to $411 billion last month from $347 billion a year ago, while receipts actually declined 1% to $206 billion from $208 billion in 2017, the Treasury Department said in a monthly report on Thursday. The biggest spending categories were Social Security ($84BN), Medicare ($77BN), National Defense ($62BN), Income security ($46BN) and Health ($42BN). Net interest on the US debt of nearly $22 trillion came in at a hefty $33BN. Meanwhile, Individual Income Taxes and Social Security Taxes both generated $93BN in income each.

National defense is a big part of the spending problem. Anyways the costs making products is just really expensive (expensive labor&health care costs for company's) for the US. Those wars/which costed trillions just was the breaking point where spending went out of control and again for what gains? Did terrorism became less? nope, quite the opposite ever since for those regions the US interfered, so it's a double loss.

They need all those extra spending or else the economy will not grow at all. So they say everything is fine, sure when you are spending 1 trillion or more each year than their budget allows, for the last 10 years or so, it seems ok but it's a a big joke.

Anyways now it becomes just more dangerous when the debt grows faster and faster, the US will do anything to keep power and control. Just lets hope other country's keep their cool and see what the US is really about/wake up. I do have faith that is the case, but still the US will never accept loosing, they may go for an all out war, who knows because their spending is out of control, they sure behave crazier and crazier by each passing year.

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: face23785

www.zerohedge.com...

November outlays surged 18.4% to $411 billion last month from $347 billion a year ago, while receipts actually declined 1% to $206 billion from $208 billion in 2017, the Treasury Department said in a monthly report on Thursday. The biggest spending categories were Social Security ($84BN), Medicare ($77BN), National Defense ($62BN), Income security ($46BN) and Health ($42BN). Net interest on the US debt of nearly $22 trillion came in at a hefty $33BN. Meanwhile, Individual Income Taxes and Social Security Taxes both generated $93BN in income each.

National defense is a big part of the spending problem. Anyways the costs making products is just really expensive (expensive labor&health care costs for company's) for the US. Those wars/which costed trillions just was the breaking point where spending went out of control and again for what gains? Did terrorism became less? nope, quite the opposite ever since for those regions the US interfered, so it's a double loss.

They need all those extra spending or else the economy will not grow at all. So they say everything is fine, sure when you are spending 1 trillion or more each year than their budget allows, for the last 10 years or so, it seems ok but it's a a big joke.

Anyways now it becomes just more dangerous when the debt grows faster and faster, the US will do anything to keep power and control. Just lets hope other country's keep their cool and see what the US is really about/wake up. I do have faith that is the case, but still the US will never accept loosing, they may go for an all out war, who knows because their spending is out of control, they sure behave crazier and crazier by each passing year.

The merit, or lack thereof, of the wars is an entirely separate issue. Defense is still 20% or less of the budget. It's over 50% social programs. And the wars are only part of the defense budget. Even if you didn't have them, you'd still need to fund defense, it was just be a marginally smaller expense. It's simply numbers. At this point we're having our own conversation rather than a thread. You can have the last word. The military spending is ballooning the debt, despite the numbers not supporting that.

a reply to: face23785

Just read this:
www.stripes.com...

You just say its social spending, that is the problem. Social spending is in your book a bad thing, right?
I mean spending on the people at home what is basically social spending, supporting them is bad right? Even still homeless people in the US are countless and growing fast. So where does that social spending goes when you say it's the problem when the poor gets more poor??
The gap between the rich and poor is really huge in the US. It's a travesty.

Just look how much the spending grew since those wars after 9-11, you just say social spending but don't come up with links supporting your truth, but just say that's the problem!

Those wars spending didn't bring in anything in return, it's like spending money on nothing, except a cause of suffering far away! It's just throwing money in the abbess. Sure many people will have jobs and money with spending it on defense (and that's different then social spending!??) but it's not something to be proud about. A cause of suffering for countless people in country's far away as well. The US doesn't get all those people fleeing those country's, Europe does. Feel proud of that. So yea Europe needs tons of ''social'' spending after those wars for those people, the EU stupid enough supporting those unjust and pointless wars, the fools.

You could spend money on the poor and needy at home and many at home will have better lives and might even grow out their problems and see a future! money spend much better in my book then trying to follow some kind of agenda of power and control far away and just a cause of tons of problems after when doing so, a cause of endless blood and suffering and acting like the good guy.

a reply to: Pluginn

I'm well aware of the cost in treasure and in lives. However, I said nothing about the merits of domestic spending. I simply pointed out it's false to say the wars are responsible for our massive debt. They're only a small part of it. Our debt is mostly because of domestic spending. I didn't say anything about whether that was good or bad. It's simply false to say the wars caused the debt, and no amount of anti-war proselytizing will change that. Just because you don't understand why we went to war doesn't mean it was a complete waste of time/money/lives. Whether it was worth what we paid is a very complex discussion. We circle back around to the fact that the wars didn't cause the debt. You can't change that. Please don't tell people that, because you'd be lying to them. I don't know how else to explain it to you. You seem unable to understand simple numbers. It's like talking to a brick wall. Enjoy.

a reply to: face23785

You even don't come up with the numbers, you again say it's social spending. So you saying spending about 750 billion/year on defense is only a small part!? get real!

I say it's the spending on those wars after 9-11 which took the US over the cliff (and I said that from the start when those wars started!) and her morals with it ever since! Like taking the bait, the 9-11 attackers seems to have succeeded not only bringing those towers down but even their (the US) own power and what is right or not got lost as well, sadly.

originally posted by: Willtell

This is not a Trump issue as all the presidents have always massively raised the defense budget thereby giving in to the powerful Military Industrial Complex

And yet the biggest obstacle to peace and less war expenditures is nationalism (and patriotism for that matter). Something Trump (and Republicans in general) have always promoted quite heavily (just like the Churches of Christendom). But you're right of course that the Democrats or other politicians have done nothing to curtail the rising influence and power of the military industrial complex. So I guess that makes them the bigger hypocrites cause they often preach peace (just like Christendom again), when there is no peace, nor are they very competent in creating or maintaining peace (or going up against the interests of the military industrial complex).

Jeremiah 6:13,14

13 “For from the least to the greatest, each one is making dishonest gain;

From the prophet to the priest, each one is practicing fraud.

14 And they try to heal the breakdown* [Or “fracture.”] of my people lightly,* [Or “superficially.”] saying,

‘There is peace! There is peace!’

When there is no peace.

John Stoessinger, professor of political science said: “I read that wars were caused by nationalism, militarism, alliance systems, economic factors, or by some other bloodless abstraction that I could not understand. . . . I wondered if this could be true. . . . After all, wars were begun by men. Yet this personality [human] dimension was seldom given its due weight in traditional books on war.”

Many theories are offered to explain the causes of war. For example, those who believe in evolution see man only as a higher form of animal life that still retains the aggressive and defensive reflexes of the animal world. They argue that aggression is innate in man, that it is in his genes. Zoologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote in The Biology of Peace and War: “Our closest relatives, the great apes, have considerable aggressive potential and are also territorial. . . . This strongly suggests that our human aggressivity may be an ancient primate heritage.”

Konrad Lorenz, Austrian founder of modern ethology (the study of animal behavior) asserts that man has an aggressive drive that is his “most powerfully motivating instinct [that] makes him go to war.”​—On Aggression.

On the other hand, Sue Mansfield, a professor of history, challenges that conclusion, saying: “Though the majority of cultures in historic times have engaged in war, the majority of human beings have not been participants.” The fact that governments have to resort to obligatory conscription into the armed forces would also suggest that aggression and killing are not necessarily viewed with great enthusiasm by people in general, nor can they be seen as reflex reactions. Professor Mansfield adds: “Indeed, the historical record suggests that warfare has usually been a minority experience.”

In recent times that minority has been highly trained and preconditioned. War and killing have also become more impersonal. In contrast with wars of past ages, the specialized minority can kill without actually seeing, let alone knowing, their victims. But if they do not know the enemy, how can people be motivated to fight?

The role of propaganda:

Sometimes neighbors quarrel. But seldom does it lead to bloodshed. In the first place, the law of the land prohibits assault and murder against fellow citizens. But in time of war, that prohibition does not apply to citizens of an opposing country, even though people in general really do not know their “enemies.” All that they know about the enemy is what they have been led to believe by the spoon-feeding of their politically controlled media.

As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

As a consequence, “practically anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in such a way that he will more or less voluntarily enter a situation wherein he must kill and perhaps die.” (War, by Gwynne Dyer) Thus, by reason of their political and economic power, the “elite” can control the media in order to prepare the masses for the bloodbath.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, leaders of the ruling Nazi elite, were well aware of the importance of mind control and deception of the masses. On August 24, 1939, Hitler explained to a group of high officers his plans for the invasion of Poland: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. . . . In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory.”

Thus it is clear that a motivation has to be generated to make a nation rise up against another. But what are the key elements in generating war fever?

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” He continues: “The power of the military embraces not only the significant sources of power but . . . all the instruments of its enforcement. . . . More than any other exercise of power in our time it is the subject of grave public unease.”

Galbraith illustrates his point by reference to the United States military institution, which has property resources that “far exceed any similar source of power; they embrace not only what is available to the armed services and the civilian military establishment but what flows out to the weapons industries.” A like situation no doubt exists in many other countries.

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

a reply to: Willtell
And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism.

In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war”. The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to war. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore:

He is a liar! (part 1 of 2)

Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.”

Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) It has been like a plague on humanity, leading to untold suffering. Nationalism with its resultant hatred of other peoples has existed for centuries. Today, nationalism continues to fan the flames of divisiveness, and human rulers have not been able to stop it.

News columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote. He called nationalism ‘an infantile disease . . . the measles of the human race.’” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

“Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.”​—What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.

“Twenty-five years ago this June,” observes the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America”, “Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

Nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

At times of national crisis and international tension governments step up programs that are designed to rally the support of the populace. Patriotic ceremonies are urged in the public schools, and the national anthem is frequently played. Yet it is at such a time, when nations are ready to fight to maintain their freedom, that they are most prone to trample underfoot within their own borders the liberties that they seek to preserve. It is a dangerous time. “One of the reasons why our times are dangerous,” as pointed out by historian Arnold Toynbee, “is that we have all been taught to worship our nation, our flag, our own past history.”

Anyone who does not join in giving expression to such veneration of the nation, regardless of his reason, is viewed with suspicion. Patriots may denounce his conduct as disrespectful, even dangerous to the welfare of the State. Such was the lot of the early Christians. Far from being a menace to the State, they were outstandingly law-abiding. Yet they could not conscientiously participate in the patriotic rites of the Roman Empire. In commenting on the matter, The Book of Culture says: “The Christians, however, strong in their faith, would take no such oath of loyalty. And because they did not swear allegiance to what we would to-day consider as analogous to the Flag, they were considered politically dangerous.”

Searching for Friends of Peace (with lyrics)

originally posted by: toysforadults
China spends 151 billion. so we out spend China on military by 5x

does China even have a Navy? Who else has a Navy?

what the hell are we so worried about?

China has Type 055 destroyers. If you don't know what it is I suggest you check it out.

The US spends a lot more than what the US collects in tax. That's deficit. But then again, let's spend spend spend.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Willtell

Defense spending as a % of GDP. The US is at 3.6%

1 Oman 12.1
2 Saudi Arabia 10.3
3 Congo 6.2
4 Kuwait 5.8
5 Algeria 5.7
6 Jordan 4.8
7 Israel 4.7
8 Lebanon 4.5
9 Russia 4.3
10 Bahrain 4.1
11 Armenia 4.0
12 Azerbaijan 3.9
12 Iraq 3.9
14 Pakistan 3.5
15 Namibia 3.4
15 Ukraine 3.4

Wiki

While I agree that our military is way bigger than it needs to be, and we can definitely spend our money more efficiently, compared to the rest of the world we're not that bad. I think population size and geographical size of a nation should also factor in.

Also don't forget that we carry the largest burden in defending Europe. And weren't you crying about Trump calling out NATO and the UN for not pulling their own weight just a few months ago?

Why do we have to use GDP as a gauge for defense spending?
Why is it not a matter of what it costs to protect our borders, no more no less?

Why not use GDP for everything else then as well where the tax payers are on the hook, like how much we spend on universal healthcare vs what other countries spend, which I think we are at 0.



Since we are the richest nation in the world, that sounds like an excuse to have an open wallet for the MIC.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Willtell

Defense spending as a % of GDP. The US is at 3.6%

1 Oman 12.1
2 Saudi Arabia 10.3
3 Congo 6.2
4 Kuwait 5.8
5 Algeria 5.7
6 Jordan 4.8
7 Israel 4.7
8 Lebanon 4.5
9 Russia 4.3
10 Bahrain 4.1
11 Armenia 4.0
12 Azerbaijan 3.9
12 Iraq 3.9
14 Pakistan 3.5
15 Namibia 3.4
15 Ukraine 3.4

Wiki

Nice list of places US foreign policy is involved with / has been targeting.

a reply to: Willtell


Three quarters of a trillion dollars? Biggest scam in the history of the world in the greatest country ever sold.

a reply to: toysforadults


There was a fairly popular video game released a few years ago devoted to the premise that -- I sheet you not -- North Korea invades the mainland U.S. while American patriots try to retake their own country.

It was further "out there" than the Lord of the Rings and gamer F-bois ate it up like candy.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
We dont spend enough on our military.
At least not for the mission it's being asked to preform.
You want less spending?
Reduce the mission load.

The problem is not the mission load but the amount we are charged by people looking for a payday, from corrupt generals, to defense industry to insider trading politicians. We have the same exact problem with defense as we do with healthcare spending.

The problem is there is no capitalism involved.
The defense industry like the healthcare industry have an open wallet and take whatever they like.

originally posted by: a325nt

originally posted by: toysforadults
China spends 151 billion. so we out spend China on military by 5x

does China even have a Navy? Who else has a Navy?

what the hell are we so worried about?

Doesn't China have more carriers then we do?
And massive, functional rail cannons?

I think we spend entirely too much on military, but only because we spend it so poorly. The MIC spends at least three times what it should on parts and equipment, and every other turn. They know they have a blank check so they don't ever price check- they buy whatever they want from whoever they're used to buying from.
Chinese government owns the manufacturing companies making their parts, so there's no profit margin from start to finish- meaning they can build a lot more for a lot less money. This is compounded of course by the low wage standards of the people doing all the work.

Hard to compete- especially when their industry was built on our willingness to sell out our own economy!

What makes it even worse, is that our American Companies purchase many of the parts from China, on the cheap and mark it up 10 fold in order to make bank.

There is no healthy capitalist competition in America esp when it comes to defense industries.
When I ask where is the thousands of competing companies against Lockheed Martin. The response is they are the only one that can do it, so they admit it is not free market capitalism.

And worse still, a lot of the defense industries have their own puppet politicians to keep the gravy train going.

They lobby politicians with millions of tax paying dollars from contracts and the politicians give back more to them. One nice circle jerk.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: face23785

What do you mean we would lose more people exactly? Spending money on defense isn't a social program when so many people get jobs and money from that? don't see much difference really.

It's pretty simple really. When you have to go to war, having better equipment than the other guy allows you to keep your own casualties down. Desert Storm was a prime example. Everyone expected thousands of casualties on our side when we had to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world and was considered well-equipped with Soviet equipment. But Saddam made the mistake of doing this right after the end of the Cold War when America had spent decades building up its military and investing in new, high-tech equipment. Our combat casualties were 10 times less than expected because we had them completely outmatched.

You can argue all day whether we should or shouldn't be involved in xyz war, but the fact is wars happen, and when we have to send our guys in, the better equipment we can give them and the better training they have, the fewer of them will come home draped under flags. I'm willing to spend money on that.

If it has to do with defending our troops, esp wrt Iraq, then how come the troops were told to deal with it by Cheney when they asked where their armor plated gear was to wear.
No, when Iraqi soldiers were surrendering to news reporters, it told us, our soldiers could have went in with water pistols and defeated them.


No, lets open up the books on military spending, and I'll bet you 80% goes to crony contracters, shareholders and politicians. Especially when many troops had to go on food stamps..


Lets open up the books and see the truth.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: midicon
yes it is. Your just too whiny and spoiled to put up with very mild inconvenience. Therefore, you have voted for perpetual warfare as the default, because visiting a human in a line was just too much trouble.

Our rent, paid in cash every month. Groceries, fuel, paid with cash. Our phone bill, paid in cash. Internet bill is even paid in cash. I will be showing up to the office Friday to pay it.

What can one person do against a global empire?? Do the one thing you can do with your choices, stop giving them extra money they can create out of nothing.
Do not rationalize your choices by acting like it has no effect. All you have to do is only spend and pay with what is in your physical possession.

If everyone stopped swiping their card and it took a big hit on them, the financial sharks that own both parties would run to the government to get another bail out or print more money and there is not a dam thing you could do about it.

We saw that with ows when we demanded them to be held criminally liable and nothing happened even with the left in power. The right is also in bed with the same toadies.