[MidwestMadman]

I wonder why the same people that complain about "The US being the policemen of the world" are usually not shouting "No new Carriers! We don't need 10 battlegroups!" or ... NO to this or no to that.

If you have all the stuff, you have to use it... Since there is no enemy, the only justification for having a war military is jumping around the globe doing things you don't want to.

If you hate nationbuilding... stop building power projection tools.

The US can defend itself against all enemies with 20% Defence spending... with 50% it could still rule the world but it couldn't be everywhere at the same time within 1-2 days.
Would that be so bad?

[lapyignipinge]

The Cons like their war machine. They make a lot of money off of war and the no-bid contracts the fatten the bank accounts of defense contractors. Plus, most, if not all of them on stock in defense companies along with oil companies and they need to use the war machine to kill brown people in far away lands to keep their rabid racist, sexist, religious, elitist, hateful and intolerant base happy all the while increasing the values of their defense and oil stocks and thereby solidifying a long happy prosperous life for themselves all the while thumbing their nose at the fleeting middle class.

Pretty much sums it up.

[KuRoregioNka]

The USA spends more than one half the total military budget of the planet.

Don’t you think that after several aircraft carrier groups, over a million and a ahalf people in uniform that the law of diminishing returns would not have kicked in?

There are many spending options that can make the US safe that do not involve military spending. For example AID can be used to pacify a country, raise the standard of living to the point where the people are not desperate and so uneducated as to want to support terrorists.

This can be done at a fraction of the cost of maintaining a long term military presence in places where unless there is some education and development the people will hate and distrust the US for generations.

[aburva.org]

The USA spends more than one half the total military budget of the planet.

Don’t you think that after several aircraft carrier groups, over a million and a ahalf people in uniform that the law of diminishing returns would not have kicked in?

There are many spending options that can make the US safe that do not involve military spending. For example AID can be used to pacify a country, raise the standard of living to the point where the people are not desperate and so uneducated as to want to support terrorists.

This can be done at a fraction of the cost of maintaining a long term military presence in places where unless there is some education and development the people will hate and distrust the US for generations.

Yes but there is no profit in it so apparently we have to have war where there is immense profit.

[lapyignipinge]

Since you didn't see them, they didn't exist?

As long as we're playing the "I get to hyperbolize my opponent's position and put words into his mouth" game, I will state that you should just admit that you mindlessly worship the military and approve of anything that it does, without question.

Sure, they exist. The question is how outlandish is the price? There are plenty of $300.00 toilet seats on the market. I've never seen evidence that the military had them, though. The ones we used shipboard ran about thirty five bucks.

But, that's neither here nor there. Your poll question, and your OP, are written in such a manner that does not allow for any discussion on the topic. You come right out and all but say that anyone who agrees with you is a moron.

How's that work for generating a topic-driven discussion?

It's pretty obvious you'd like to gut the defense budget. You're not alone. Most liberals I know would love to do the very same thing. Generally speaking, thoough, those people are not all too intelligent. As such, it's a better use of ones' time to simply laugh at those people and then dismiss them than it is to try to have any reasonable discussion with them, because they're simply not interested in that...

[yharmon6614]

I was actually referring to the lack of factual basis for all his other insults and rhetoric. $400 hammers are the least the countries problems.

Depend's on how many $400 hammers there are...."a billion here, a billion there..."

Sure, they exist. The question is how outlandish is the price? There are plenty of $300.00 toilet seats on the market. I've never seen evidence that the military had them, though. The ones we used shipboard ran about thirty five bucks.

But, that's neither here nor there. Your poll question, and your OP, are written in such a manner that does not allow for any discussion on the topic. You come right out and all but say that anyone who agrees with you is a moron.

How's that work for generating a topic-driven discussion?

It's pretty obvious you'd like to gut the defense budget. You're not alone. Most liberals I know would love to do the very same thing. Generally speaking, thoough, those people are not all too intelligent. As such, it's a better use of ones' time to simply laugh at those people and then dismiss them than it is to try to have any reasonable discussion with them, because they're simply not interested in that...

The poll had a place for "other". You could have used that and explained it. While I realize you use it mainly to vent bile this is, formally, a discussion board, where we make an effort to argue topics of interest in a rational way.

You could, frex, try to tell us why we need such a huge military and military budget, especially when our infrastructure is now rated D+ by the American Institute of Civil Engineers (buncha commies there if I ever saw one) and most of the states are now saying they can't pay their workers the pensions they agreed to, while the Feds repeat the mantra for Social Security. Under those circumstances the need to be building a FOURTEENTH Carrier Group while the Grand total of all the other navies in the entire world is NONE does seem to be a reasonable question. I was hoping a military man like yourself might actually give us a reasonable answer. Alas, it's so much easier, I guess, just to insult people and do exactly and precisely what the OP accuses you of doing. Careful not to froth on the keyboard too much, if it's a miltary model that might be a thousand bucks

[pXss8cyx]

The poll had a place for "other". You could have used that and explained it.

Golly, John, I didn't realize that my not voting was going to result in you wetting your panties...

While I realize you use it mainly to vent bile this is, formally, a discussion board, where we make an effort to argue topics of interest in a rational way. This is just completely fuckin' laughable coming from you...

You could, frex, try to tell us why we need such a huge military and military budget... Why should I, or anyone, take the time to write out a reasoned response which would just be, as evidenced by the vitriol in the OP, completely dismissed?

No, I think I'd rather just point out how fucking retarded the poll is as written. This could've been a great discussion. Unfortunately, unclassifiable threw this train off the tracks with his very first post...

[Agedprepdoock]

Golly, John, I didn't realize that my not voting was going to result in you wetting your panties...



This is just completely fuckin' laughable coming from you...

You could, frex, try to tell us why we need such a huge military and military budget
Why should I, or anyone, take the time to write out a reasoned response which would just be, as evidenced by the vitriol in the OP, completely dismissed?

No, I think I'd rather just point out how fucking retarded the poll is as written. This could've been a great discussion. Unfortunately, unclassifiable threw this train off the tracks with his very first post...

OK, but I asked nice. Could you tell me why we need such a huge military? I'll only try to refute it if it is factually wrong or point out where it is illogical, if it is.

[NanoKakadze]

How am I being hypocritical?

You claim to oppose wasteful, deficit spending but laud wasteful, deficit spending on military shit.

I notice you didnt post any facts yet. Then you have failed to process post # 13.

[sandracuk]

As I've said elsewhere, the Tea Party's failure to follow Ron Paul's lead, and go after the insane amounts of money (and lives) wasted on our imperialistic foreign policy, proves them frauds.

[viiagrag]

Hammers and toilet seats? What a bunch of tripe.

Jesus fucking Christ, I don't know where to start in regards to wasteful defense spending...

OK how about the congressional decision to replace the Palidin 155mm Howitzer with the Crusader 155mm Howitzer? At more than double the cost? The "Crusader", yeah that's a good name for an artillery piece when our enemies are trying to use the false propaganda that the West is engaged in a crusade to kill all Muslims as a recruiting tool. I couldn't think of a stupider name for a new weapon project considering the circumstances. Does the US military really need stuff like that when considering ther current threats we face?

How about the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter projects? The F-22 was made in 44 States, then they wonder why there was massive cost overruns. It's called pork-barrel spending and I think it is wasteful spending.

And what about discontinuing the F-14? the F-14 was used extensively in Iraq throughout the 90's in Operation Southern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone for a decade and none of them ever got shot down. I know one pilot who took some flak several times, however the F-14 has a remarkably resilent dual engine airframe and he was always able to make it safely back to the airbase in Saudi Arabia. There will likely never be another F-14 ever produced again because the tooling to produce them was destroyed, ostensibly to prevent Iran from getting spare parts. Was that the real reason or does the real reason have more to do with the Military Industrial Complex selling much more expensive weapons systems that we really don't need.

And what about C-130 and C-17 projects?

Unclassifiable, I'm sorry that I hijacked your thread with real issues, but I think it is pretty fucking stupid to be talking about hammers and toilet seats.

[intmarkworkk]

As I've said elsewhere, the Tea Party's failure to follow Ron Paul's lead, and go after the insane amounts of money (and lives) wasted on our imperialistic foreign policy, proves them frauds.

Which means that every last tea party person who is not anti-pax americana, is hypocritical scum that deserves every bit of disrespect dished out (plus quite a bit more on top of that).

[GreesyBeeva]

Hammers and toilet seats? What a bunch of tripe.

Jesus fucking Christ, I don't know where to start in regards to wasteful defense spending...

OK how about the congressional decision to replace the Palidin 155mm Howitzer with the Crusader 155mm Howitzer? At more than double the cost? The "Crusader", yeah that's a good name for an artillery piece when our enemies are trying to use the false propaganda that the West is engaged in a crusade to kill all Muslims as a recruiting tool. I couldn't think of a stupider name for a new weapon project considering the circumstances. Does the US military really need stuff like that when considering ther current threats we face?

How about the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter projects? The F-22 was made in 44 States, then they wonder why there was massive cost overruns. It's called pork-barrel spending and I think it is wasteful spending.

And what about discontinuing the F-14? the F-14 was used extensively in Iraq throughout the 90's in Operation Southern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone for a decade and none of them ever got shot down. I know one pilot who took some flak several times, however the F-14 has a remarkably resilent dual engine airframe and he was always able to make it safely back to the airbase in Saudi Arabia. There will likely never be another F-14 ever produced again because the tooling to produce them was destroyed, ostensibly to prevent Iran from getting spare parts. Was that the real reason or does the real reason have more to do with the Military Industrial Complex selling much more expensive weapons systems that we really don't need.

And what about C-130 and C-17 projects?

Unclassifiable, I'm sorry that I hijacked your thread with real issues, but I think it is pretty fucking stupid to be talking about hammers and toilet seats.

So waste doesn't matter if it involves trivial items? You have some nerve. Those overpriced hammers and toilet seats, depending on the numbers purchased, represent the entire tax contributions of a certain number of people combined.

[herbalviagra]

Hammers and toilet seats? What a bunch of tripe.

Jesus fucking Christ, I don't know where to start in regards to wasteful defense spending...

OK how about the congressional decision to replace the Palidin 155mm Howitzer with the Crusader 155mm Howitzer? At more than double the cost? The "Crusader", yeah that's a good name for an artillery piece when our enemies are trying to use the false propaganda that the West is engaged in a crusade to kill all Muslims as a recruiting tool. I couldn't think of a stupider name for a new weapon project considering the circumstances. Does the US military really need stuff like that when considering ther current threats we face?

How about the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter projects? The F-22 was made in 44 States, then they wonder why there was massive cost overruns. It's called pork-barrel spending and I think it is wasteful spending.

And what about discontinuing the F-14? the F-14 was used extensively in Iraq throughout the 90's in Operation Southern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone for a decade and none of them ever got shot down. I know one pilot who took some flak several times, however the F-14 has a remarkably resilent dual engine airframe and he was always able to make it safely back to the airbase in Saudi Arabia. There will likely never be another F-14 ever produced again because the tooling to produce them was destroyed, ostensibly to prevent Iran from getting spare parts. Was that the real reason or does the real reason have more to do with the Military Industrial Complex selling much more expensive weapons systems that we really don't need.

And what about C-130 and C-17 projects?

Unclassifiable, I'm sorry that I hijacked your thread with real issues, but I think it is pretty fucking stupid to be talking about hammers and toilet seats.

Rumsfeld axed the Crusader back in 2002. And the F-14? Please, the labor costs alone on those things were outrageous;

On average, an F-14 requires nearly 50 maintenance hours for every flight hour, while the Super Hornet requires five to 10 maintenance hours for every flight hour. http://www.military.com/features/0,1...l?ESRC=navy.nl

Not to mention they took up half again as much space as the F/A-18, and couldn't use any of the newer weapons, like JDAMs. The only thing the F-14 ever had that was impressive was the AIM-54 Phoenix AAM, and they almost never fired them because the range was too great (BVR, these days everyone wants a visual on the target before firing) and they were incredibly expensive.

[Luisabens]

You claim to oppose wasteful, deficit spending but laud wasteful, deficit spending on military shit.



Then you have failed to process post # 13.

Where did I laud anything? I said it was the least of our problems. That still includes it as a problem. I simply see no point focusing on defense spending when it is one of the few things everyone supports, and its only 20% of spending.

Post 13 is not a fact. Its a graph with no source. So here is an actual fact. The White House lists the Defense Superfunction as costing 700bn.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

[tipoketpu]

So waste doesn't matter if it involves trivial items?

Well, not according to libs.

When the GOP presented their budget, libs here pissed and moaned about the budget being, essentially, a "trivial" amount less than that of the Democrats...

[EarnestKS]

Where did I laud anything? I said it was the least of our problems. That still includes it as a problem. I simply see no point focusing on defense spending when it is one of the few things everyone supports, and its only 20% of spending.

Holy fucking shit, I called this false accounting out right in the OP and you went ahead and repeated it.

Post 13 is not a fact. Its a graph with no source. So here is an actual fact. The White House lists the Defense Superfunction as costing 700bn.

Historical Tables | The White House A graph is a set of facts: one for each data point. To find the source of that graph, you simply right click on the graph and note the URL.

Do you think that this fact helps your point?

[ancexiaepidge]

Well, not according to libs.

When the GOP presented their budget, libs here pissed and moaned about the budget being, essentially, a "trivial" amount less than that of the Democrats...

Is Ron Paul a "lib"?

[Cigarsstoreonline]

Holy fucking shit, I called this false accounting out right in the OP and you went ahead and repeated it.



A graph is a set of facts: one for each data point. To find the source of that graph, you simply right click on the graph and note the URL.

Do you think that this fact helps your point?

You win. I can tell theres no point in continuing.

[CoallyPax]

All spending should be cut by atleast 20%....