[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The Cold war is OVER. China is not an enemy-it wants to make money selling cheap products to us. The ME will ALWAYS be unstable. If we had spend a fraction of what we are spening on 'defense" (on synthetic gasoline plants) we would not have to import any oil. The world price of oil would drop, and the ME would fade in importace.
It is our irrational energy policy that fuels the world’s conflicts.
And, suppose we decide to ‘sit out’ the latest african massacres? I don’t see where military intervention solves anything.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not so sure that money will solve our dependency on foreign oil…unless you have cars that run on burning money.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I agree with everything except for “enfeebling the national government so that it is powerless to do anything”, because that isn’t rational.
[/QUOTE]
The right wing isn’t rational.
What I’d hope to see is a general resurgence of the country. There’d be more money flowing into the more productive parts of the economy. We could afford to fix our crumbling infrastructure. We could afford to build non-oil sources of energy.
Certainly it would be better than our huge, expensive military, which does us about as much good as piling up hundreds of millions of dollars in piles and burning them.
The U.S. needs to maintain the most technologically advanced and capable military in the world. The world has proven to be a highly dangerous and unstable place over history and the downside of being caught off-guard can be fatal to the point of complete annihilation of nations, regions, or even the world. The U.S. military in general does an outstanding job once you get past the idea that they are not nation builders and were never intended to be. It takes too long to rebuild a completely dominant military so that priority just have to weave into our national identity and already has for the most part.
I have heard the humorous idea proposed that the U.S. should have both a Department of Defense and a Department of Offense. It wouldn’t work in the real world but it makes an interesting way of looking at things. Pearl Harbor would unleash the fury of the Department of Defense as would Gulf War I and maybe even Afghanistan. However, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War II would be more in the arena of the Department of Offense and these haven’t gone as well. It is a blurry line but food for thought. The U.S. military does an outstanding job of delivering a very rapid and debilitating blow for the U.S. itself or its allies during imminent, aggressive threats. That is the most important thing it can do to ensure both domestic and international stability jeopardized by aggressive military threats.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
What would we do with all that money we save?
[/QUOTE]
Unh…now here’s a radical idea. Give it back to the taxpayers we stole it from and let them decide what to do with it?
[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
Taxpayers can’t even be trusted to vote correctly, much less keep their own money. Really now.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: What was I thinking?
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
The U.S. military does an outstanding job of delivering a very rapid and debilitating blow for the U.S. itself or its allies during imminent, aggressive threats. That is the most important thing it can do to ensure both domestic and international stability jeopardized by aggressive military threats.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with that argument is that WE are a threat to stability, and WE are an aggressive military threat.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Unh…now here’s a radical idea. Give it back to the taxpayers we stole it from and let them decide what to do with it?
[/QUOTE]
Taxation isn’t theft.
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
…
I have heard the humorous idea proposed that the U.S. should have both a Department of Defense and a Department of Offense. It wouldn’t work in the real world but it makes an interesting way of looking at things. Pearl Harbor would unleash the fury of the Department of Defense as would Gulf War I and maybe even Afghanistan. However, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War II would be more in the arena of the Department of Offense and these haven’t gone as well. It is a blurry line but food for thought.
[/QUOTE]
What an ingenious suggestion! Wherein is it impractical? Imagine: A formal division of those military actions that are honorable and those that are shameful.
I would like to see huge prestige projects go into the works! We can get 100% or close to employment this way, AND we can finally have really cool, giant, ornate buildings to point to whenever we start feeling culturally inferior to really old foreign cultures.
I mean, we visit China to see the Great Wall or the Summer Palace, but when tourists come here they get stuck with downtown LA or Manhattan? Psh! Let’s build something COOL!
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm I saw 40 yesterday. Heres one at 36. It is huge. Comparing it to the wealth of the nation is just a trick to minimize it. But when you view it as a portion of taxes collected ,it shows that it is a conscious choice and other programs suffer.
[QUOTE=gonzomax] http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm I saw 40 yesterday. Heres one at 36. It is huge. Comparing it to the wealth of the nation is just a trick to minimize it. But when you view it as a portion of taxes collected ,it shows that it is a conscious choice and other programs suffer.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s a different look at the overall number:
According to this cite, the total Federal budget (2008) is 2.9 trillion dollars. (mimick Dr. Evil pinky-at-corner-of-mouth)
Discretionary spending is 1.1 trillion.
Department of Defense (481.1 billion) and GWoT (145.2) is 626.6 Billion.
Combined DoD/GWoT = approx. 21% of total Federal budget, 57% of discretionary spending.
GWoT spending kinda boosts those numbers up a bit.
