Do recent global developments change your view on defense spending?

[rickc]

Profits of corporations are directly tied to our economic interests.

We are a capitalist society.

I’m a big fan of capitalism.

So you say corporate profits are worth dying for.

Same thing Trump thought about the coronavirus.

I disagree

 

[BirdinHand]

So you say corporate profits are worth dying for.

Same thing Trump thought about the coronavirus.

I disagree

Well good for you?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

High military spending means that we are “safe”.

No it doesnt. All that spending didnt prevent 911. Killing Iraqis and Afghans and Vietnamese doesnt make me "safe", just the opposite. IMO.

I still prefer to have an overwhelming military at the command of POTUS and military leaders because the best offense is a good defense.

Yeah, that didnt even make sense, that is not how that saying goes to begin with LMFAO. You have it backwards, "the best defense is a good offense". FFS.

F*ck with the United States and hell fire will rain down upon you.

Gosh, that sounds like some Revelations type stuff. Real balanced 'n stuff.
You must, again, be referring to how Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc et al "****ed with the United States"? BAHAHAHAHHAA. Good lord.
No wonder this country has become such a laughable joke, regardless of how much is spent on military.

I don’t need to worry about hiding my son in a train tunnel or evacuating my home because some other country dares to attempt to invade the US. We are first protected by oceans and second have dominance of the seas and air.

Nobody is going to "invade the US", it isnt even possible, and I was taking part in nuclear blast drills where students cowered in hallways and "hiding" under desks and this was way back in the 70s, so your obscene amount spent on military is not accomplishing your stated objectives.

And I see our military positioned around the globe as protecting our economic interests. That also greatly lends to my personal comfort.

Right, thats what I said, you seem to be saying you enjoy killing people halfway around the world for "economic interests" (ie: profit making), and its OK with you because it "lends to your personal comfort".

OK, thanks for all that info, I have to go scrub my entire body now with hot and soapy water to try to get that stench off me, YIKES, again: turn to that bible of yours.

Its perfectly understandable how so much of the world hates the folks in the US, and may even see the US as evil and a "great satan", yeah it kinda is I guess.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

So you say corporate profits are worth dying for.

No she isnt saying that, she is saying that corporate profits are worth killing others for.

Really sick and disgusting shit imo.

 

[BirdinHand]

No it doesnt. All that spending didnt prevent 911. Killing Iraqis and Afghans and Vietnamese doesnt make me "safe", just the opposite. IMO.


Yeah, that didnt even make sense, that is not how that saying goes to begin with LMFAO. You have it backwards, "the best defense is a good offense". FFS.


Gosh, that sounds like some Revelations type stuff. Real balanced 'n stuff.
You must, again, be referring to how Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc et al "****ed with the United States"? BAHAHAHAHHAA. Good lord.
No wonder this country has become such a laughable joke, regardless of how much is spent on military.


Nobody is going to "invade the US", it isnt even possible, and I was taking part in nuclear blast drills where students cowered in hallways and "hiding" under desks and this was way back in the 70s, so your obscene amount spent on military is not accomplishing your stated objectives.



Right, thats what I said, you seem to be saying you enjoy killing people halfway around the world for "economic interests" (ie: profit making), and its OK with you because it "lends to your personal comfort".

OK, thanks for all that info, I have to go scrub my entire body now with hot and soapy water to try to get that stench off me, YIKES, again: turn to that bible of yours.

Its perfectly understandable how so much of the worlds hates the folks in the US, and may even see the US as evil and a "great satan", yeah it kinda is I guess.

Don’t forget to scrub behind your ears.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I support smart defense spending. I think we should spend a lot on defense and have the ability to project power around the world. However, there is also a massive amount of waste and corruption in defense spending. So I don't think it should just be a blank check for defense contractors.

 

[Fishking]

Do you have a good idea of many overseas bases we should have in order to provide security to our friends and allies around the world?
Which countries should we abandon in order to suit your vision of global support to our allies?

Better question: Why the **** should the US shoulder the burden of the rest of the world's security?

 

[Fishking]

We do spend too much but it isn't because we carry the financial burden of the rest of the world. It's because there is money to be made in making weapons.

Buying your own product doesn't make money. That's just transferring money from one pocket (the people) to another pocket (defense contractors). If we actually had countries around the world be responsible for their own defense, we might actually make more real money, as they would have to up their defense spending.

 

[Fishking]

We shouldn’t. What we should have is a military capability that far exceeds that of the world’s #2 military capability.

We have that, plus all the rest combined.

 

[Callen]

Better question: Why the **** should the US shoulder the burden of the rest of the world's security?

.......because in large part they want that control for their own economic security. The US is not on some sort of altruistic mission.

 

[Fishking]

.......because in large part they want that control for their own economic security. The US is not on some sort of altruistic mission.

For your statement to be true, you'd have to admit that if we stopped being world police countries around the world would go align themselves with the adversaries of the "free world". That's an admission that the US is what is holding everything together and no one else.

If that is the case, and we have to carry that burden, then the world should be paying us.

 

[Evilroddy]

Somebody has to protect nations like Canada.

NatMorton:

In the case of Canada, who do we need protecting from? The only countries which could realistically threaten us short of nuclear strikes are France, Greenland and the USA. I don't think France or Greenland are up to it. Therefore your comment sounds like something a street tough might say while enforcing a protection racket.

There is one more threat to Canada. That is the transpolar threat from Russia. Canada must move to address that threat but rather ironically the US keeps lobbying against Canada developing a stealthy nuclear-powered submarine capacity because it wants free run in the Arctic waters for itself. So get out of the way and let Canada start coming to terms with developing the capacity to defend ourselves from the one real military and economic threat we face - the transpolar threat from Russia.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[romance]

FrEeDuMbZ$™.
I insist on perpetual FrEeDuMbZ$™.

Hm, no, you misunderstand me. I am not a freedumb (or whatever the noun of that is). That's kind of the explanation given on why we have so much military spending as opposed to, like you said in a separate post, doing things to help people in our country. Combating homelessness, dealing with childhood poverty, our rapidly crumbling infrastructure, and our refusal to look climate change head on, are all things we could tackle if we trimmed the unnecessary fat from our military budget. It all goes to building nothing! It's wildly infuriating.

I'm not a warmonger but I absolutely think there should be accountability demanded by citizens when so much of our political rhetoric involves glorifying our military at any cost. Our lives would all be so much better if half that defense budget went to other things inside our country. Instead it's a slap in the face to see all the crap we waste military spending on and no one seems to bat an eye.

 

[Callen]

For your statement to be true, you'd have to admit that if we stopped being world police countries around the world would go align themselves with the adversaries of the "free world". That's an admission that the US is what is holding everything together and no one else.

If that is the case, and we have to carry that burden, then the world should be paying us.

No, I don't believe that to be true at all. A strong and stable Europe is in the best interests of the US both from an economic and national security perspective. The US wants to be in control, to be in charge and to use that power as a lever to execute their foreign policy. As long as the US remains in Europe they maintain that control. The US could pull all their forces from Europe and elsewhere but they don't. They want a physical presence, if not they could easily full them. I'm not at sure I understand why you think they are there.

 

[Evilroddy]

High military spending means that we are “safe”.

Has our government made poor choices? Yes. Have we been misled as to why we have engaged in wars (as citizens), yes.

I still prefer to have an overwhelming military at the command of POTUS and military leaders because the best offense is a good defense.

F*ck with the United States and hell fire will rain down upon you.

Do you not agree with that?

I don’t need to worry about hiding my son in a train tunnel or evacuating my home because some other country dares to attempt to invade the US. We are first protected by oceans and second have dominance of the seas and air.

The only “threat” to us is nuclear war (or terrorists) and nuclear war would mean MAD.

And I see our military positioned around the globe as protecting our economic interests. That also greatly lends to my personal comfort.

BinH:

Russia has a bigger stock of nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver most of them than America does. "Feck" with Russia and even more hellfire will rain down. That is why Europe, NATO and the USA are sitting on their hands while Russia invades Ukraine.

Your notion of high military spending equating to safety is a pipe-dream. The USA is the most aggressive military on the planet but you consistently have failed to meet your political goals by military means since the Korean Conflict seventy years ago. You can win the fight but you cannot win the peace and thus make enduring changes abroad, so your military interventions don't make you safer but rather engender the hate which actually increases your peril. Think 9/11.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Fishking]

No, I don't believe that to be true at all. A strong and stable Europe is in the best interests of the US both from an economic and national security perspective. The US wants to be in control, to be in charge and to use that power as a lever to execute their foreign policy. As long as the US remains in Europe they maintain that control. The US could pull all their forces from Europe and elsewhere but they don't. They want a physical presence, if not they could easily full them.

Again you admit that it's our security forces, which we pay for in money and blood, that is responsible for the strength and stability of Europe.

 

[romance]

So who exactly was responsible for leaving behind between $10 and $80 billion of defense equipment for the Taliban goat herders to figure out how to use against their enemies?
Was his name Joe Biden?

Here’s the List of Billions in Military Equipment the US Left Behind for the Taliban

“The Taliban now has more Black Hawk helicopters than 85% of the countries in the world,” Congressman Jim Banks, a veteran, lamented. “But it's not just weapons. They have night vision goggles and body armor."

fee.org

Your second paragraph is a lot more practical than your first.

Yeah, his name was Joe Biden. And their names are also George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.

Hundreds of billions were spent by the US in Afghanistan. Here are 10 of the starkest examples of 'waste, fraud and abuse'

Half a billion dollars of aircraft that flew for about a year. A huge $85 million hotel that never opened, and sits in disrepair. Camouflage uniforms for the Afghan army whose fancy pattern would cost an extra $28 million. A healthcare facility listed as located in the Mediterranean Sea.

www.cnn.com

 

[BirdinHand]

BinH:

Russia has a bigger stock of nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver most of them than America does. "Feck" with Russia and even more hellfire will rain down. That is why Europe, NATO and the USA are sitting on their hands while Russia invades Ukraine.

Your notion of high military spending equating to safety is a pipe-dream. The USA is the most aggressive military on the planet but you consistently have failed to meet your political goals by military means since the Korean Conflict seventy years ago. You can win the fight but you cannot win the peace and thus make enduring changes abroad, so your military interventions don't make you safer but rather engender the hate which actually increases your peril. Think 9/11.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Perhaps we need more nuclear weapons - as this situation is showing.

 

[Fishking]

BinH:

Russia has a bigger stock of nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver most of them than America does. "Feck" with Russia and even more hellfire will rain down. That is why Europe, NATO and the USA are sitting on their hands while Russia invades Ukraine.

Your notion of high military spending equating to safety is a pipe-dream. The USA is the most aggressive military on the planet but you consistently have failed to meet your political goals by military means since the Korean Conflict seventy years ago. You can win the fight but you cannot win the peace and thus make enduring changes abroad, so your military interventions don't make you safer but rather engender the hate which actually increases your peril. Think 9/11.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

That's because for an outside force to impose lasting peace on a populous you have to enact levels of brutality that people won't accept in a modern world. There is a reason why the British crown lasted for so long, or the Romans, or the Egyptians, or China, hell...even in the US with the native populations that we took the land from.

Not arguing against the rest of your points though, as they aren't that far off. A side quibble with your overall post, if you will.

 

[Grand Mal]

Somebody has to protect nations like Canada.

From who? Look at a map of the world and guess which country presents the biggest possible threat to Canada's sovereignty.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Better question: Why the **** should the US shoulder the burden of the rest of the world's security?

Nobody is asking you to. The choice to spend more on defence than the next ten nations (allies included) lies entirely with the US militaryiindustrial complex.

 

[Manc Skipper]

From who? Look at a map of the world and guess which country presents the biggest possible threat to Canada's sovereignty.

Is it one they share a land border with?

 

[Evilroddy]

Profits of corporations are directly tied to our economic interests.

We are a capitalist society.

I’m a big fan of capitalism.

BinH:

That's not a capitalist creed which you have articulated above. The above is a Neo-merchantilist expression of the importance of global military strength in order to maintain a commercial empire (rather than a territorial one).

Capitalism is about competition between producers and freedom of choice among consumers in free markets, not about coercion, collusion and controlled markets being imposed and enforced on your own people and populations abroad. You are a champion of state capitalism and empire, and are most definitly not a capitalist according to what you have written here. Nor are you any safer for it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[jakiejakester]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

The recent events and actually the events of the entire 21st century show that having overwhelming firepower does not win wars which are mostly insurgencies. Ukraine is a prime example the Russians have an obvious advantage yet they're bogged down and even if they eventually gain control of the their government the Ukrainian people will not become subservient and will always resist so it would be a hollow victory for Russia.

Just think if we cut back this years DOD budget by 10% ($76B) what we could do domestically with that money? I'm happy to see this thread because @Conservative has been "debating" me on this in another thread and when I constantly asked "would the USA be unsafe if we cut 10%?" he repeatedly refused to answer and could never provide any reasons.

The bottom line is that we will be just as safe if we cut 10%!

 

[reinaert]

US defense spending could be cut, if the process was de-porked.