Military spending - how much is appropriate?

[Empty Hands]

that we need to NOT let any more arabs into the country?

WTF? Seriously.

 

[Empty Hands]

I think you're missing my point. If we're not going to be the "World's Policemen (tm)", why would we be sending supplies and help at all? Or are you okay with being the "World's Fire Department"?

Not automatically, no. But I wouldn't say no help ever, either. It just isn't that much money compared to the rest, so we should probably decide on a case-by-case basis.

Or we could go back to the military envisaged by Jefferson, the militia called up when needed. Now that would save some cash!

 

[Archangel M]

Not automatically, no. But I wouldn't say no help ever, either. It just isn't that much money compared to the rest, so we should probably decide on a case-by-case basis.

Or we could go back to the military envisaged by Jefferson, the militia called up when needed. Now that would save some cash!

I dont think ole TJ ever envisioned ICM's, bombers or the enemy being able to drop on him from out of the sky LOL!

Not to say ever thinking the USA would be expected to protect allies half the world away within a number of days (if not hours).

 

[Twin Fist]

WTF? Seriously.

we got hit once for 3K casualties.

what did the 19 all have in common?

thats a good place to start in figuring out who is a security risk

it is simply GOOD POLICE WORK

whatever else it may be

 

[blindsage]

Actually let the Arabs come, they only attacked a liberal America-hating stronghold anyway. But we should send any white, libertarian leaning, anti-government types to Guantanamo, so they can't kill anymore god-fearing proper Americans in terrorist attacks on government institutions.

 

[Big Don]

that we need to NOT let any more arabs into the country?

Not all Arabs are terrorists. Not all muslims are terrorists. not all muslims are arab...
Iran, for example is an aryan nation...

 

[Twin Fist]

not all muslims are terrorists

all THOSE terrorists were however muslim

 

[Tez3]

Actually let the Arabs come, they only attacked a liberal America-hating stronghold anyway. But we should send any white, libertarian leaning, anti-government types to Guantanamo, so they can't kill anymore god-fearing proper Americans in terrorist attacks on government institutions.

You don't get out much then.

 

[celtic_crippler]

We should submit a bill to the UN and all the countries we've "policed."

 

[blindsage]

You don't get out much then.

Me? I get out plenty.

 

[Deaf Smith]

"All that spending..." Yep, sometimes it made us safer, sometimes it stimulated the economy and provided jobs, ...but other times it ended up being a huge waste of dollars and lives, making a few individuals very rich while contributing to the crushing weight of our budget deficit. I won't argue specific policies in specific conflicts. We'll all disagree anyway, but it is fair to say that it's a complex issue... and we should all demand accountability.

Unless you think that the military functions best when you give it a blank check?

Crushing weight? Might want to talk about the 'stimulus' instead. Now that's a crushing weight.

Sure the spending on military helped the economy. It also spurred alot to science technology you use everyday. Ever wonder where the GPS came from? Sure not from Obama's idea of 'stimulus'.

Accountability? Now how are you going to second guess what decisions were made as to what was bought? Going to hold trials? Jail people for their decisions while in office?

Now tell me, if you do that just who do you expect will ever make those decisions again with the worry some 'citizens' would want to jail them for what they THOUGHT was wasteful?

Sure there are things that didn't pan out, and no doubt some of the decisions were bone headed. But any large bureaucracy will have this to an extent cause we are humans, and humans are not perfect.

I only wish we did get the whole 700 + F22s and a whole lot more besides. It's very hard to say just what 'X" dollars will make the country safe and just a little less won't. And that's why I'd rather we spend a bit to much than a bit to little.

Deaf

 

[geezer]

Crushing weight? Might want to talk about the 'stimulus' instead. Now that's a crushing weight.

Point taken. When the government bureaucrats (including the military bureaucrats) have a blank check from the taxpayers, don't expect the money to go where it's needed. More likely it ends up lining some executive's pockets.

Accountability? Now how are you going to second guess what decisions were made as to what was bought? Going to hold trials? Jail people for their decisions while in office?

Oh, I never said anything about trials. I just get royally pissed when some general's buddies in the defense industry get rich when our soldiers can't even get the equipment they need to do their job safely. Remember how hard it was to get them body armor, armored humvees, and MRAPs? Hell, maybe you're right. Maybe the brass that spend hundreds of our dollars on hammers and toilet seats while our soldiers in the field go under-equipped deserve a freakin' medal!

Sure there are things that didn't pan out, and no doubt some of the decisions were bone headed. But any large bureaucracy will have this to an extent cause we are humans, and humans are not perfect.

That's cute. "Things that didn't pan out". Like 58,000 dead in Vietnam. And for squat. I hope we get a better "return" for our investment in US lives this time around.

It's very hard to say just what 'X" dollars will make the country safe and just a little less won't. And that's why I'd rather we spend a bit to much than a bit to little.

Yep, except if you do spend a bit too much on war, then you spend less on other things that matter. Remember the Eisenhower quote?

It is hard to say what's the right amount to spend. And I don't have the answer. But I think it's also important to spend what is needed on things like education and health care. Otherwise what kind of nation will we have left to be worth protecting?

 

[Twin Fist]

We should submit a bill to the UN and all the countries we've "policed."

i like the cut of your Jib

 

[Deaf Smith]

That's cute. "Things that didn't pan out". Like 58,000 dead in Vietnam. And for squat. I hope we get a better "return" for our investment in US lives this time around.

The Vietnam War failure was not about spending. It was how it was fought. We fought it by the enemy's rules with one arm tied behind our back. It does not matter how good your hardware is if your strategy and tactics are bankrupt. You have McNamara to thank for that. Notice we did so well taking Afghanistan and Iraq (and you have Dick Cheney and John Boyd to thank for that.) And unless Obama cut-n-runs from Afghanistan (and he just might) then we will prevail there to.

Yep, except if you do spend a bit too much on war, then you spend less on other things that matter. Remember the Eisenhower quote?

It is hard to say what's the right amount to spend. And I don't have the answer. But I think it's also important to spend what is needed on things like education and health care. Otherwise what kind of nation will we have left to be worth protecting?

And failure to protect our country adequately will make all the education and welfare moot. Kind of like a lifeboat. Does not matter how good and comfortable it is in the life boat if you fail to keep it afloat in a storm.

Deaf

 

[Big Don]

That's cute. "Things that didn't pan out". Like 58,000 dead in Vietnam. And for squat. I hope we get a better "return" for our investment in US lives this time around.

Congrats! That is one of the single stupidest statements online. The war in Vietnam was mismanaged not by the military, but, rather by the civilian leadership, you know, JFK, LBJ...
Had the military been allowed to fight the way they wanted, we'd have been done with a tenth the casualties in much less time.
When you don't fight to win, you can't friggin win.

 

[Big Don]

Oh, I never said anything about trials. I just get royally pissed when some general's buddies in the defense industry get rich when our soldiers can't even get the equipment they need to do their job safely.

For the past several years, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has funneled more than $3 million in earmarks to a company in his district to build an underwater "swimmer detection" sonar system for the Navy to use to protect its docks and ships.

But the company, KDH Defense Systems, sews bulletproof vests. It had never built a sonar system and had no expertise in sonar engineering.
Damn those republicans anyway...
Oh, oopsie...

 

[geezer]

Congrats! That is one of the single stupidest statements online. The war in Vietnam was mismanaged not by the military, but, rather by the civilian leadership, you know, JFK, LBJ...
Had the military been allowed to fight the way they wanted, we'd have been done with a tenth the casualties in much less time.
When you don't fight to win, you can't friggin win.

You know this thread is really not about Vietnam, or Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about appropriate levels of military spending, and efficient, effective use of that money. My reference to 'Nam was to give an example of how a lot of money (and lives) can be wasted if not used wisely. Somehow, it seems you missed my point... again, maybe due to a tendency to see every other point of view through a binary political perspective? "If you're not with us, your against us".

An attitude like that makes polite conversation difficult, "...one of the single stupidest statements online..." Really, sometimes I've made some blunders, but that's first class hyperbole in anybody's book. Thanks anyway.

 

[geezer]

And failure to protect our country adequately will make all the education and welfare moot. Kind of like a lifeboat. Does not matter how good and comfortable it is in the life boat if you fail to keep it afloat in a storm.

Exactly. I'd prefer not to have to end up in that life boat. On the other hand, I damn sure want to know it's there... and seaworthy.

So if we differ, it's in the details... not the basic premise.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Ya know...I'm thinking...If they (the gov't) left the 2nd ammendment alone and let it go as intended we probably wouldn't need all this military spending.

Just a thought.

 

[CoryKS]

Exactly. I'd prefer not to have to end up in that life boat. On the other hand, I damn sure want to know it's there... and seaworthy.

So if we differ, it's in the details... not the basic premise.

Not sure I want to be in that lifeboat with folks who are holding a saw and saying, "Hey, I think we have too much boat here."