- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I think we are still stronger in the military sense. That's why it's important IMO to not cut military spending. Our federal government is obligated to protect us and given all the turmoil that's going on in the world now, it would incredibly irresponsible to cut military spending IMO.
You spend more on your military than the next 13 countries combined. Given what we know about over-charging and inefficiency in military procurement, there's a huge amount of slack in the US military. As you can see from this WaPo article, taking out the specific costs of ongoing funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has been spending more and more, year-on-year at a time when other areas of government are cutting back to the bone.
I fail to see what greater threats the US is facing now than it was 10 years ago. What argument do you think exists for ring-fencing military spending against the austerity measures that every other sector is having to face?
None of that matters. Military spending is one of the few true responsibilities of the federal government, unlike a lot of other areas the feds like to involve themselves with.
I think Putin is calling Obama's bluff and it's working.
They see the US as weak and vulnerable.
I believe the federal government has many true responsibilities, and maintaining a bloated, inefficient military, and opposing any attempts to streamline it, doesn't seem to be a responsible use of tax dollars. But hey! They're not my tax dollars. If that's what the American people want, that's up to them.
They see us as a paper tiger because our leader has no balls, no intelligence and no experience.
An empty suit.
Do we have the disposable billions to join that fight?
Right..we can't/won't secure our OWN borders but we need to go halfway around the world to secure a foreign country's borders...great idea...
and then, unbelievably, there's THIS;
Obama administration and Mexican government officials recently discussed creating a three-tier security system designed to protect Mexico’s southern border from drug and human traffickers, according to U.S. officials.
The border control plan calls for U.S. funding and technical support of three security lines extending more than 100 miles north of Mexico’s border with Guatemala and Belize. The border security system would use sensors and intelligence-gathering to counter human trafficking and drug running from the region, a major source of illegal immigration into the United States.
Obama Administration Considers Plan to Bolster Mexico
we truly are an idiocracy/ineptocracy
None of that matters. Military spending is one of the few true responsibilities of the federal government, unlike a lot of other areas the feds like to involve themselves with.
Are you kidding me? A lot of that matters. Having a power does not mean that pork, waste, fraud and abuse are OK under that power. Nearly everytime a defense program is discussed it is political, rather than national security, interests that are allowed to prevail.
Congress pushes for weapons Pentagon didn
Daily Kos: NOW the military-industrial complex thinks the system is broken?
They see us as a paper tiger because our leader has no balls, no intelligence and no experience.
An empty suit.
Going in is easy. Getting out is the tricky part. If you go into a country uninvited by the ones controlling the govt, that's called war.
Russia would like no more than to watch the US go into another country half way across the globe and further deplete our national treasures as well as the blood of our children.
If Russia was smart they would support people of the "John Wayne," American war dog-bravado mindset. I am sure your service is appreciated. And when America has spent itself in to an abyss, with our last bullets spent defending people who just as soon see us burn in hell, then Putin, et al., might find the opportunity to pounce.
What I hope Russia does see instead, is America returning to our shores to build up our military to heights never seen before, preparing for the day when we have to meet a REAL foe on the battlefield.
It please me to see the poll now reflects less than 7% the people here are in favor of the John Wayne, American "Bad-Ass," war mongering approach. That's very encouraging. Perhaps the neocon mentality is finally being sent to the trash heap.
As far as I can tell, that isn't true. Should doublecheck your sources.
Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Be especially wary of "news" you read on partisan sites, whether left or right.
I think it's very wise given the current turmoil in the world. Why would I or anyone want a weakened military?
Weakened? No. More efficient? More cost efficient? More transparently funded? Yes, yes and yes. No?
Somehow I don't think the French will be welcomed back
Great Syrian Revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
As for the OP the devil is in the details
Pull an Iraq? No
Pull a Libya? Yes
Pull an Iraqi Kurdistan? Yes
...and you think we'll be more welcomed than the French?
I really wish we could mind our own business for once. But whom am I kidding? Call the World Police. AMERICA - **** yeah!
Well said.
Does anyone, other than myself, find it somewhat ironic that some folks, from one side of their mouth say that America reflects a weakened image by not acting as the world's policemen and with the other side of their mouth warn us how dangerous China is, who have avoided international interventions for as long as I can remember, as they are now such a 'super power."
If China can grow and prosper by keeping their noses out of other nation's pissing matches, why can't the US?
I wouldn't have a problem with cutting out the waste part, but I certainly don't want any skimping in order to fund an entitlement program.
How about in investing in infrastructure? Energy development and efficiency? Economic development? Paying off your debts to China?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?