Of the last five Presidents...

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

You're about 63 Billion short: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obamas-2013-budget-would-boost-veterans-affairs-funding-105percent/2012/02/13/gIQAqLnGBR_blog.html

I'm afraid that those numbers don't count. Those are for a 2013 budget that hasn't been passed yet. And we all know it's been 3 years since Harry Reid brought a budget to the Senate floor.

I thought you wanted to talk about what has actually been done and not proposals. If you want to talk about some of Obama's proposals he is screwed, like cutting military pensions, increasing medical cost, etc...

Edited to add: Lets not forget about the automatic triggers and cuts that happened when the budget wasn't passed, most of which came out of the military.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars?

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Helping Veterans is more than just caring for the wounded in battle.

Correct, imagine the extent of long term benefits available to our veterans when the funds would not have to be expended on PTSD, TBI and SCI treatment.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars?

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars?

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

I disagree. With a large enough military budget ("defense" is an advertising euphimism), wars become virtually guaranteed, for the military must flex, justify and perpetuate itself; and the civilians who command it will be all the more tempted to use it imprudently.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars?

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

I disagree. With a large enough military budget ("defense" is an advertising euphimism), wars become virtually guaranteed, for the military must flex, justify and perpetuate itself; and the civilians who command it will be all the more tempted to use it imprudently.

The classic economic question, guns or butter?

I'm a hawk. I vote for guns. Go churn your own butter.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

You're about 63 Billion short: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obamas-2013-budget-would-boost-veterans-affairs-funding-105percent/2012/02/13/gIQAqLnGBR_blog.html

I'm afraid that those numbers don't count. Those are for a 2013 budget that hasn't been passed yet. And we all know it's been 3 years since Harry Reid brought a budget to the Senate floor.

I thought you wanted to talk about what has actually been done and not proposals. If you want to talk about some of Obama's proposals he is screwed, like cutting military pensions, increasing medical cost, etc...

Edited to add: Lets not forget about the automatic triggers and cuts that happened when the budget wasn't passed, most of which came out of the military.....

You're right. That was my Bad. Actuals to date only.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars?

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

I disagree. With a large enough military budget ("defense" is an advertising euphemism), wars become virtually guaranteed, for the military must flex, justify and perpetuate itself; and the civilians who command it will be all the more tempted to use it imprudently.

The classic economic question, guns or butter?

I'm a hawk. I vote for guns. Go churn your own butter.

Jesus is proud of people like you - NOT.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

The greater the level of firepower rained down on the enemy the less the battlefield casualties. IMO

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars?

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

I disagree. With a large enough military budget ("defense" is an advertising euphimism), wars become virtually guaranteed, for the military must flex, justify and perpetuate itself; and the civilians who command it will be all the more tempted to use it imprudently.

If you have a scenario like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" where annihilation is assured if you start trouble, then trouble won't be started. No doubt America's might has suppressed the desires of many dictators who otherwise would run amok. Like North Korea.

The other end of that spectrum is just as bad, like before WWII where Hitler and Tojo thought that America was so weak and neutral that it wouldn't get involved. And then we had to start from behind, and lose hundreds of thousands of lives regaining our power to beat them. Weakness encourages war, from those who love to take advantage of other's weakness.

Want a recent example? Just look at Sadam Hussein around 1990, and an American diplomat named April Glaspee. She was like Neville Chamberlain. She led Hussein to believe that America would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait. So Hussein proceeded with his plans, based upon his perception that America was weak and unwilling. And look at all the mess we've been in every since because of that.

We need to be strong enough so that no one dares to fuck with us. But we don't need to wield that power unnecessarily. Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

And you do have to give bad actors a whack once in a while to let 'em know you mean business. Otherwise, you're back to being weak again...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The classic economic question, guns or butter?
I'm a hawk. I vote for guns. Go churn your own butter.

Jesus is proud of people like you - NOT.

And what happened to Jesus?

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

I'm a hawk. I vote for guns. Go churn your own butter.

Jesus is proud of people like you - NOT.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

So to clarify my point: Suppose our nation had so much treasure that we could easily afford as much butter, and as many guns, as we could possibly gorge ourselves on. I would still argue that an overly-large military budget is a dynamic driving unnecessary wars, for the reasons I stated above.

*ETA- I had meant to reply to RonD's post...

I do not disagree with you. Given the choice of hawk or dove, I choose hawk.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[3331 108]

Anyone who voted for Clinton or Obama must not have served in the US Armed Forces.

Clinton who was quoted as "loathing the Military" let Vietnam Veterans Benefits expire that Regain had created and Bush continued. Obama plans on gutting our Military Services just like Clinton did.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to show your not a racists, you can vote for Romney in 2012 and show your not an idiot.

Steve N
US Air Force 1966-70

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

I sincerely wish it worked that way.

If you consider how many inventions were guaranteed to produce such hideous results on the battlefield that they would render war inconceivable, I think the fundamental concept is flawed.

When there exists a military that is so impressive that it appears sure to overwhelm any potential opponent, there is, historically speaking, a near certainty that it will be used as an instrument of political will.

You know, shock and awe and all that.


BSBD,

Winsor

Reference my post to Andy9o8 above, I am a hawk. Given a choice of funding for defense and anything else, I am most likely to choose defense.

I believe we are going to enter a long dark night of winter in the near future regardless of the November outcome. I believe the terrorist movement, regardless of the ideological names placed on it, will escalate. I believe my safety and the safety of my family will a require an adequately supplied personal, community and national defense.

But, above all political decisions, BHO must go.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[grimmie 173]

Canada has a $25 billion budget for defence.
They spend $5 billion on foreign aid.
No one is flying airliners into buildings in Toronto.
Toronto has a very large Muslim population. (a fact for Ron and his fear of Muslims)
We haven't won a war for decades.
The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I disagree. With a large enough military budget ("defense" is an advertising euphimism), wars become virtually guaranteed, for the military must flex, justify and perpetuate itself; and the civilians who command it will be all the more tempted to use it imprudently.

I get that, agree with the last sentence anyway

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary.

I disagree. With a large enough military budget ("defense" is an advertising euphimism), wars become virtually guaranteed, for the military must flex, justify and perpetuate itself; and the civilians who command it will be all the more tempted to use it imprudently.

If you have a scenario like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" where annihilation is assured if you start trouble, then trouble won't be started. No doubt America's might has suppressed the desires of many dictators who otherwise would run amok. Like North Korea.

The other end of that spectrum is just as bad, like before WWII where Hitler and Tojo thought that America was so weak and neutral that it wouldn't get involved. And then we had to start from behind, and lose hundreds of thousands of lives regaining our power to beat them. Weakness encourages war, from those who love to take advantage of other's weakness.

We need to be strong enough so that no one dares to fuck with us. But we don't need to wield that power unnecessarily. Walk softly, but carry a big stick. And you do have to give bad actors a whack once in a while to let 'em know you mean business. Otherwise, you're back to being weak again...

I actually agree with you in large part, and was going to mention the pre-WW2 point myself in my earlier post, but I was on my phone at the time and it's a bitch to type a post on this site via smart phone. (psst....Meso.... are you listening?)

Of course undue weakness is an invitation to the mischief-makers. But that truth co-exists with the truth of my point - that an overly-bloated military is also a dynamic driving toward unneeded wars. So yes, the key is balance. And I happen to believe that Americans would be safe in our homes and our beds and our way(s) of life if our military was even half the size it is now.

During the Cold War years, how was it that all the Western European countries were able to afford universal national health systems for all of their citizens (even if they were imperfect)? If you say "high taxes", that's at best half the answer. The other half is that their security umbrella was provided in largest part by the US's massive military and security services.

What do you suppose paid for that? The answer to that is reflected partly in the fact that the US, despite all its affluence, remains the only industrialized nation on the planet not to have universal health coverage for all its citizens. Contrasted with, say, Western Europe and Canada, only in the US does an unemployed, middle-aged man barely able to get by have to worry that if he gets cancer or needs extensive multiple orthopedic surgeries after a car crash, he just might have to go fuck himself, since mandatory ER treatment doesn't cover that sort of thing.

It's not just liberals, but also President Eisenhower in 1961, who warned this nation about the consequences of a bloated military-industrial complex. I want our country defended, but I'm sick of "defense" being used as a deceptive, enabling, guilt-evoking euphemism for "everything military".

Put another way: I'm willing to sacrifice blood and treasure on needed defense, for my country, and to a lesser degree for our close allies who give back as much as they take. But, with a few exceptions (like the occasional well-justified no-fly zone), not for discretionary offense.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Given a choice of funding for defense and anything else, I am most likely to choose defense.

And as I just said in a subsequent post, I'm sick of "defense" being used as a deceptive, enabling, guilt-evoking euphemism for "everything military".

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

A lot of very rich military contractors?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

A lot of very rich military contractors?

Yes, and that is precisedly what Ike warned us about in '61.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Canada has a $25 billion budget for defence.
They spend $5 billion on foreign aid.
No one is flying airliners into buildings in Toronto.
Toronto has a very large Muslim population. (a fact for Ron and his fear of Muslims)
We haven't won a war for decades.
The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

Canada is naturally protected by geography, and meteorology - it's so darned cold that nobody wants to live there anyway. They're also blessed to have their single neighbor, be a very friendly one.

Yes, those some of those same attributes are true about America too. But we also go to the aid of others who are in need, and when you do that, it makes you enemies of the tyrants who would attack their peaceful neighbors. If bullies are picking on the school geek, and you stand up for the geek, that makes the bullies want to pick on you too. The answer to that is not to just let the bullies have their way with the geek, and for everyone to cower in fear. No, the answer is for MORE people to step forward and stand up to the bullies.

Like it or not, the world depends upon America to keep the bullies at bay. If we shirk that duty, then all hell will break loose, and the world be a far worse place.

Sure, we could withdraw all our troops from foreign lands, become isolationist, and just sit back and mind our own business. But what then do we say to our friends overseas when Iran attacks them, or North Korea attacks them? Do we just say; "tough shit, not our problem!" Is that the kind of America you want?

Quote

The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

Freedom. Not just for ourselves, but for Europe, the Pacific rim and parts of the Middle East. And for millions of immigrants who come streaming here in droves from oppresive places, because of that freedom.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Friday Morning US CST... I'll post my findings and discuss the poll.

Hey, I'm waiting!

I honestly have no idea, but I voted for Bush v.1 just for the hell of it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Canada has a $25 billion budget for defence.
They spend $5 billion on foreign aid.
No one is flying airliners into buildings in Toronto.
Toronto has a very large Muslim population. (a fact for Ron and his fear of Muslims)
We haven't won a war for decades.
The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

90 (95?) percent of Canadians live along the American border. It has extensive unprotected lands, but they're varying levels of cold to tundra. If instead the country were located where Poland was....

That said, America could use its geographical advantages (oceans + Canada) and substantially scale down its ability to project power and still come out fine. The rest of the world, otoh, may not appreciate the consequences, as other powers would interfere more with their neighbors.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The US mindset behind having the world's biggest military industrial complex to keep us safe is pretty flawed thinking. What return have we gotten for our large investment??

A lot of very rich military contractors?

very true. It's a problem with the current RNC

RNC has three main groups -

1 - evangelicals Reps - they want everyone to obey and follow their version of socially correct and will legislate it if they could. - With these guys, we really don't need Dems (with the same agenda, just a different focus). Both groups I suspect are sincere in their beliefs, but fanatics always scare me just because of that. I think these are the real villians in society just because they are so self righteous about their causes. Seems that the super vocal and rude on dz.com are in these camps a lot.

2 - Home defense/security Reps - they are happy to spend whatever they can to support this agenda and don't much care about the economic impact. Their friends get rich as a nice goal too. With these guys, we really don't need Dems (with an analogous agenda, just a different set of friends they payoff.) Not so worried about this type, they are easy to identify and know what they are.

3 - Fiscal conservatives - they want people to keep their own money for various reasons, both selfish and for the good of the country. We have a group of those in the Dems as well. We need more.

see the theme - it's no the party that matters, it's the focus.

Unfortunately, in both parties, this flavor of people in group 3 is in a huge minority since the "social buttinskies" can energize the simple minded idiots of both sides, and the "in it for the money and power" types can buy/promise influence. It's just more successful to be in the two selfish groups.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants