Do we spend enough on the Military?

[countryboy]

The thing that bugs me about this is, the American perception that defense spending grows as a function of time.. but, if someone proposes an educational program that costs $54 Billion dollars, they get screamed at by people saying, "Who's going to pay for it?" So, there's a double standard. If someone wants $54 Billion for bombs and warships, it's okay. But, if someone wants to invest $54 Billion dollars in education, they are "pie in the sky". Then conservatives set in with the argument of "I'm not paying for someone else's school." That's fair but, then that validates the liberal argument of, "I'm not paying for someone else's war."

But here's the difference. The military actually performs an effective service, and keeps our nation safe. We spend more on education than just about any country in the world, but the results are lackluster, to say the least.

Having said that, we need to have a serious audit of defense spending, and streamline the bureaucracy to cut out the gross waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on there. Not just the military either, but every facet of the federal bureaucracy. Do I realistically believe this is ever going to happen? Naw.

 

[Chips]

Saddam, to use another example, was absolutely horrific to his people. The US provided air support to the rebels who defeated Gaddafi; he had armed dozens of terrorist groups and conducted some such attacks through his intelligence agency. Allende was heavily supported by the Soviet Union, with the KGB paying off opposing candidates and providing funding; given the opportunity he would gave been horrific.

Sure Saddam was a horrific despot, and history will look upon Gaddafi [although, I can't say I don't, to some extent, admire someone who became the head of state at 27, and held that position until almost 70] in a similar light.

I'd argue that the primary problem with President Allende was that he nationalized a lot of stuff, similar to PM Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950's. Granted, I couldn't care less if those countries democratically elected leaders decided to nationalize their industries, but the United States did.

And it turned out to be a big mess, in both cases.

 

[Chips]

But here's the difference. The military actually performs an effective service, and keeps our nation safe.

I think thats kind of a facile argument, in both directions.

First of all, while I do agree that the military does provide an actual service to the country, I do feel that it is way bigger than it needs to be. The same security benefit could easily be achieved with a smaller military.

Second of all, social services do actually provide an effective service to the country. Especially where programs such as primary education or health care are considered.

Considering the amount of actual defending the Department of Defense does, I'd say it's more of a luxury item to some extent. Force projection across the globe was not what the founding fathers had in mind.

We spend more on education than just about any country in the world, but the results are lackluster, to say the least.

Having said that, we need to have a serious audit of defense spending, and streamline the bureaucracy to cut out the gross waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on there. Not just the military either, but every facet of the federal bureaucracy. Do I realistically believe this is ever going to happen? Naw.

We spend more on everything than any other country, because we have the money to burn, and as you've said we also seem to have the money to waste.

But, that aside, I don't think government waste is really a good pillar of a concept to defund education. I think you're on the right track with removing waste, lets stick to that, rather than gutting critical programs.

Seemed to work for Toyota.

 

[countryboy]

I think thats kind of a facile argument, in both directions.

First of all, while I do agree that the military does provide an actual service to the country, I do feel that it is way bigger than it needs to be. The same security benefit could easily be achieved with a smaller military.

Second of all, social services do actually provide an effective service to the country. Especially where programs such as primary education or health care are considered.

Considering the amount of actual defending the Department of Defense does, I'd say it's more of a luxury item to some extent. Force projection across the globe was not what the founding fathers had in mind.



We spend more on everything than any other country, because we have the money to burn, and as you've said we also seem to have the money to waste.

But, that aside, I don't think government waste is really a good pillar of a concept to defund education. I think you're on the right track with removing waste, lets stick to that, rather than gutting critical programs.

Seemed to work for Toyota.

After reading the first line of your post, I was about to knee-jerk and ditch the rest of the post. But something told me to slog through. I'm glad I did. I can't say I entirely disagree.

Waste, fraud, and abuse is often used as a political talking point, but the fact is, it's a real problem. We could actually cut military spending, and not sacrifice one bit of size. Same goes for all facets of Federal bureaucracy. I can't understand why Americans aren't out in the streets with pitchforks and torches over this. :shrug: Wait, I think my show is coming on.....gotta go. :mrgreen:

 

[Henrin]

Yep, because despite the fantasies of some people we aren't there to set up a colonial empire. Short of Hitler style atrocities, there's no way to stop fanatics from emerging from the rubble of whatever nasty regime the US crushed.

And yes, they were.

No, but US does go there to eliminate political structures and ideas they don't like. The US also DOES try to stop groups from filling the vacuum and they do try to put in place a government they find agreeable.

I also don't buy the story on Libya like I didn't buy the story on Iraq. They US goes to those countries with the intent to eliminate their governments. The US governments excuses to the contrary are bull****.

 

[Chips]

But something told me to slog through. I'm glad I did. I can't say I entirely disagree.

That's a much appreciated compliment, thanks.

Waste, fraud, and abuse is often used as a political talking point, but the fact is, it's a real problem. We could actually cut military spending, and not sacrifice one bit of size. Same goes for all facets of Federal bureaucracy. I can't understand why Americans aren't out in the streets with pitchforks and torches over this. :shrug: Wait, I think my show is coming on.....gotta go. :mrgreen:

I think you're right on point, and I know we could do better.

In 2008 it took the United States three years to construct the USCGC Bertholf, at a cost of $641 million dollars.

In 2011 it took South Korea less than one year to Construct the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller at a cost of $190 million.

The Maersk ship is more than 40 times the displacement of the USCG Cutter.

 

[countryboy]

That's a much appreciated compliment, thanks.



I think you're right on point.

Thanks, and, welcome to the forum.

 

[Tigerace117]

No, but US does go there to eliminate political structures and ideas they don't like. The US also DOES try to stop groups from filling the vacuum and they do try to put in place a government they find agreeable.

I also don't buy the story on Libya like I didn't buy the story on Iraq. They US goes to those countries with the intent to eliminate their governments. The US governments excuses to the contrary are bull****.

In the case of Afghanistan, we went there to destroy Osama's allies and attempt to capture him, as he was sheltering there. And yes, the US does not allow groups like Al Qaeda to simply fill the void.

Just because in Henrin-world you think your opinion is more important than historical fact, does not make it so. Gaddafi armed literally dozens of different terrorist groups---including the provisional IRA. There were also incidents like these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_West_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

 

[Chips]

Thanks, and, welcome to the forum.

Thanks, it's good to be here.

-side note, I pushed post too quickly on the last post. I went back and added some details, showing the amount of waste we see in the United States.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sure Saddam was a horrific despot, and history will look upon Gaddafi [although, I can't say I don't, to some extent, admire someone who became the head of state at 27, and held that position until almost 70] in a similar light.

I'd argue that the primary problem with President Allende was that he nationalized a lot of stuff, similar to PM Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950's. Granted, I couldn't care less if those countries democratically elected leaders decided to nationalize their industries, but the United States did.

And it turned out to be a big mess, in both cases.

One can hold onto power for a long time if one is lucky enough. That doesn't make one a good ruler.

If you let the KGB bribe your opponents, that's a serious issue and says a lot about your worldview. The Ayatollah would have just as much a problem with a democratic Iran as he had with the Shah.

 

[Chips]

One can hold onto power for a long time if one is lucky enough. That doesn't make one a good ruler.

After thirty years, I think it wen't beyond luck.

I didn't like the guy, but I do understand that to an extent he did know exactly what he was doing.

If you let the KGB bribe your opponents, that's a serious issue and says a lot about your worldview. The Ayatollah would have just as much a problem with a democratic Iran as he had with the Shah.

Maybe that's the case, but regardless the United States should not be installing governments in stable nations with democratically elected leaders. Really wasn't the intent of the military from the start, and shouldn't be the intent now.

It really has never worked out for us.

We should stick to what we're good at, which is winning wars where there is an actual aggressor or opposing force. Not nation building or intervening in sovereign states.

Worked the first time we ventured into Iraq to help Kuwait.

 

[cuban smokes]

The United States of America is guilty of,

1. having the largest military budget on planet Earth; the US spends more money on our military, war, and killing those we don't agree with more than (nearly) all other nations combined
2. disruptions of elections of other nations, coercion, death squads, assassinations, military assistance, arms sales, terrorism, etc.
3. being the largest arms supplier to countries across the planet

We as Americans & OUR government have figured out that 'if we don't like it', we can bomb the Hell out of whatever it is we don't like into submission BUT if that does not work, then we can just drown a people & a geographic area in arms, and that will solve the problem that 'we don't like'.

The US has planted more weapons across the globe, sent more $$$$$ worth of weaponry across the planet, and cooperated in more military actions than any other nation in modern history, YET none of this seems to be working to our favor.
WHEN does a nation so Hell bent on controlling others finally realize that the insanity it has fostered for so many decades may not be working out so great?

Funny; doesn't seem to be working yet.

HOW LONG will it take US to figure out the insanity we have pursued for SO MANY DECADES is not working?

Then, after we have made enemies across the globe we act as if we are surprised that we are confronting wave after wave of terrorism; the same thing we have served others, just in a slightly different form.

WE are digging our own graves, we are TOO arrogant for our own good, and no, I am not being hyperbolic as seems to be such a popular saying here .......

 

[Brewdog]

No, I think he's cool because his tactics have been proven to work. Over, and over, and over again. In fact, seeing as the the North Vietnamese studied his thinking intensively, I'd say if we'd paid a bit more attention we might have done better in Vietnam.

Arrogance loses battles, and wars for that matter. Given the amount of arrogance you show the US is lucky nobody put you in charge.

This is the most sophomoric **** ever. If you worship Sun Zsu, you're just an idiot noob with no concept of combat tactics. But that's you, isn't it? You're a child in high school.

 

[cuban smokes]

This is the most sophomoric **** ever. If you worship Sun Zsu, you're just an idiot noob with no concept of combat tactics. But that's you, isn't it? You're a child in high school.

personal attacks .......... bad .............

 

[Brewdog]

personal attacks .......... bad .............

Do you ever read his posts? Did I start this?

 

[Tigerace117]

After thirty years, I think it wen't beyond luck.

I didn't like the guy, but I do understand that to an extent he did know exactly what he was doing.



Maybe that's the case, but regardless the United States should not be installing governments in stable nations with democratically elected leaders. Really wasn't the intent of the military from the start, and shouldn't be the intent now.

It really has never worked out for us.

We should stick to what we're good at, which is winning wars where there is an actual aggressor or opposing force. Not nation building or intervening in sovereign states.

Worked the first time we ventured into Iraq to help Kuwait.

Neither the Taliban nor Saddam were democratically elected. As I've stated before as well, many of the regimes we have toppled that were "democratically elected" turned out to have only achieved that feat via Soviet manipulation.

It worked for a while, but then Saddam was still able to slaughter his own people in the interval.

 

[SCitizen]

Many disabled people in USA are being destroyed by society which does not support them. One of the reasons is the spending on Military.

 

[cuban smokes]

Many disabled people in USA are being destroyed by society which does not support them. One of the reasons is the spending on Military.

exactly; we spend trillions on killing outside our borders but what do we spend on our own, here at home?

shame ...............

 

[Tigerace117]

This is the most sophomoric **** ever. If you worship Sun Zsu, you're just an idiot noob with no concept of combat tactics. But that's you, isn't it? You're a child in high school.

Sun Tzu knew one hell of a lot more about warfare than you do, that's for sure. The Art of War is literally a masterpiece. Those who have learned from it have won their campaigns; those that arrogantly dismiss it out of foolishness, like yourself, are lucky you didn't end up fighting somebody competent.

Judging from your posts, I highly doubt you even grasp the concept of tactics. With people like you, no wonder we can't seem to win a guerilla war.

 

[SCitizen]

exactly; we spend trillions on killing outside our borders but what do we spend on our own, here at home?

Thank G-d my parents support me -- I have Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression. Millions of Americans with disability sink to drugs and end up in prison.

 

[Brewdog]

Sun Tzu knew one hell of a lot more about warfare than you do, that's for sure. The Art of War is literally a masterpiece. Those who have learned from it have won their campaigns; those that arrogantly dismiss it out of foolishness, like yourself, are lucky you didn't end up fighting somebody competent.

Judging from your posts, I highly doubt you even grasp the concept of tactics. With people like you, no wonder we can't seem to win a guerilla war.

You said at one point that you wanted to join the Marines. I am a Marine. You believe me to be incompetent? Then why would you want to be a part of an organization that breeds incompetence?

You have not the slightest idea of what I've done for these United States or what I'm capable of, sonny. You should hope to one day be as competent as I. Otherwise, you can take your mediocre high school education and your second-rate insults and go screw.

 

[Tigerace117]

You said at one point that you wanted to join the Marines. I am a Marine. You believe me to be incompetent? Then why would you want to be a part of an organization that breeds incompetence?

You have not the slightest idea of what I've done for these United States or what I'm capable of, sonny. You should hope to one day be as competent as I. Otherwise, you can take your mediocre high school education and your second-rate insults and go screw.

I don't believe the organization is incompetent; as you stated, I believe you are the one who has utterly failed to gain any understanding of military history or tactics.

I've learned a few things in my studies and preparation for boot camp. One of those things is that the serious operators certainly don't spend any time woofing about how much they have done for America on Internet message boards. Nor do they spend time bragging about how competent they are on the Internet.

Now, that indicates a number of possibilities. None of which say much good about you, I'm afraid.

 

[Brewdog]

I don't believe the organization is incompetent; as you stated, I believe you are the one who has utterly failed to gain any understanding of military history or tactics.

I've learned a few things in my studies and preparation for boot camp. One of those things is that the serious operators certainly don't spend any time woofing about how much they have done for America on Internet message boards. Nor do they spend time bragging about how competent they are on the Internet.

Now, that indicates a number of possibilities. None of which say much good about you, I'm afraid.

I'm happy you've studied Marine boot camp. It will surely help you at PI.

lol

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm happy you've studied Marine boot camp. It will surely help you at PI.

lol

Sorry I'm not naive enough to jump in headfirst without knowing exactly what I'm getting myself into. I guess it's true what they say though; the next generation is always a jump up on the old one.

I'm not going to PI, by the way; I'd be going to Pendleton.

 

[Brewdog]

Sorry I'm not naive enough to jump in headfirst without knowing exactly what I'm getting myself into. I guess it's true what they say though; the next generation is always a jump up on the old one.

I'm not going to PI, by the way; I'd be going to Pendleton.

Oh that's what they say, do they? The new generation is smarter? Generation Z is smarter than Gen X?

I'm sure you'll go far believing that.