cutting the military? - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**drugstore** · 03-09-2010, 12:48 PM

It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar.

Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part.

Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security?

For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools.

What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems.

One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe

The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods.

You've got a point....at least the beginning of a point.

Military strength isn't worth much if is used inappropriately. It's like having a basement full of new, shiny tools but still using a ratchet handle to pound nails. Also, diplomacy IS an important part of conflict resolution although one often gets more favorable results when that diplomacy is conducted from a position of strength.

Our military was grown to address the threat of war in Europe and that priority held through the 80's. We then began a draw down because the world was "safer" with the fall of the Soviet Union. "Safer", as it turned out, was relative. Recently our primary threat hasn't been from one large opponent but, rather, several smaller opponents who are dispersed around the globe. To deal with that threat we scaled back troop strength but ramped up technology - very expensive technology. Today we are finding that we not only need the technology but that we also need the troop strength.

I also want you to think about what this money spent primarily on military technology has purchased. WWII saw over 1,000,000 US dead and wounded. Korea saw nearly 150,000 and Vietnam saw more than 200,000. Compare that to Iraq where we have had less than 40,000 dead and wounded with less than 4000 of that total actually being combat deaths. In Afghanistan we have had less than 10,000 dead and wounded. Isn't the reduction in casualties worth anything?

**rengerts** · 03-09-2010, 12:56 PM

lemme asks ye though, be it fair to view our military spendin' this way?
1) our military spendin' as it relates to our current national debt and...

No, because this implies that the military is the primary driver of the debt, when it's more a result of too much entitlement spending.

2) even if our GDP has risen, what of it? i mean, if i waste 50k per year 'o me monies goin' to the casino and i make 100k per year....and my income jumps to 130K per year and increase me spendin' at the casino to 60K per year....aren't i still spendin' more?

You are spending more on gambling, but you're spending more 'more' on non-gambling items, so it's not like you're financially neglecting your real responsibilities. Tho in this case, the military is the real responsibility. That's a fact, even if whether it may or may not be being neglected in favor of other expenses is a matter of opinion.

our military goal shouldn't be parity with the rest of the world but, rather, should be "strong enough so that the others don't even think of fucking with us."

If we have the resources, that indeed should be our goal. With our economy and future in trouble from too much entitlement spending, we may not be able to reach that goal, but military cuts should still be secondary to entitlement cuts.

**gettoblaster** · 03-09-2010, 01:42 PM

No, because this implies that the military is the primary driver of the debt, when it's more a result of too much entitlement spending.

You are spending more on gambling, but you're spending more 'more' on non-gambling items, so it's not like you're financially neglecting your real responsibilities. Tho in this case, the military is the real responsibility. That's a fact, even if whether it may or may not be being neglected in favor of other expenses is a matter of opinion.
If we have the resources, that indeed should be our goal. With our economy and future in trouble from too much entitlement spending, we may not be able to reach that goal, but military cuts should still be secondary to entitlement cuts.

*enjoys his mornin' grog and nods to Evil_inKarlate*

avast ye, Evil_inKarlate!

matey, i don't disagree with much that ye have scribed.

yea, and more...i have posted, with great vigor, that them entitlements that ye mentioned should not just be adjusted, nay, i've been 'o the mind that they need to be eliminated.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...onomy-aye.html

me main point 'o this thread, though, was simply this...

them who claim that Mr. Obama be makin' big cuts in military spendin' (or any cuts, for that matter) are wrong.

its not happenin'.

so i'd ask folks to please stop repeatin' this bit 'o fiction.

YARRR!

- MeadHallPirate

**Derrida** · 03-09-2010, 01:44 PM

For every dollar the federal government spends, they take in like 3 cents or something....everything needs to be cut, including the military budget...we need to live within our means.

**Ankeseiband** · 03-09-2010, 01:46 PM

If military spending is to be cut then it should only be done if our strategic position dicates it. It should not, however, be done to simply win political points.

**IRYzouNv** · 03-09-2010, 01:49 PM

If military spending is to be cut then it should only be done if our strategic position dicates it. It should not, however, be done to simply win political points.

Hail thee, oh master 'o military issues on USPO!

ye need not worry then, me hearty. military spendin' is goin' UP, not down, under the leadership 'o Mr. Obama.

- MeadHallPirate

**styhorporry** · 03-09-2010, 01:54 PM

Here you go...

Joint Forces Command closure is part of bigger plan | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Robert Gates' call for transforming the way the military does business might have seemed directly aimed at Hampton Roads, home to the only command he proposed eliminating Monday.

But the secretary of defense's plan to shutter Joint Forces Command, which employs some 5,000 people in Norfolk and Suffolk, is part of a larger effort he's undertaken to overhaul the way the Pentagon buys weapons, employs contractors and spends billions duplicating its own work.

His announcement may have caught many local officials off guard, but the reasoning behind it shouldn't surprise anyone. Gates has been sounding the alarm about unsustainable defense budgets for years. "The biggest challenge to our national security at the moment is that we might bankrupt the nation through excessive spending," Thompson said. "The bottom line here is if the department can't find efficiencies on its own, it will get plenty of help from Congress." In the meantime, defense contracting companies that specialize in systems engineering and technical assistance can expect to feel the bite from Gates' initiatives.

Gates said funding for support contractors - not those working overseas, making equipment or building tanks and ships - will be reduced by 10 percent a year for the next three years.

Harrison took that to mean that Gates believes that a third of the work those contractors are doing is unnecessary.

"That doesn't bode well for the industry," he said. There you go... 'all that talk about cutting'

**luffyplayaz** · 03-09-2010, 01:59 PM

Here you go...

Joint Forces Command closure is part of bigger plan | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

There you go... 'all that talk about cutting'

*hugs the ultra partisan, Tsquare*

thank ye, thank ye, matey.

ye made me point fer me.

its....all....talk.

spendin' on our offensive industry is goin' UP. the talk about cuttin' be just that.

talk.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

**Arrecteve** · 03-09-2010, 02:00 PM

I think the military should be cut somewhat, but a strong military is vital, and for all of the spending our government does, the only item that is constitutionally mandated is having a military. IMO a ~$450 billion defense budget would be $1,500 spent for every man woman and child in the US, which seems 'sufficient'. It would still be 5x what China spends, the next biggest military spender.

**Sliliashdes** · 03-09-2010, 02:01 PM

Hail thee, oh master 'o military issues on USPO!

ye need not worry then, me hearty. military spendin' is goin' UP, not down, under the leadership 'o Mr. Obama.

- MeadHallPirate

Well, to be honest, a spending increase isn't always a good thing either. Again, any military spending needs to reflect our strategic position and aims. I am sure we could be more efficient with our military spending and, thereby, drive down the overall $$$ amount. However, the 'bottom line' should never take priority over readiness.

**Kimaamighed** · 03-09-2010, 02:04 PM

Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security?

For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools.

What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems.

*reads RDK's post and muses*

hmmmf.

interestin' post matey. somethin' fer us all to think about, aye.

- MeadHallPirate

**pimbertiemoft** · 03-09-2010, 02:07 PM

If military spending is to be cut then it should only be done if our strategic position dicates it. It should not, however, be done to simply win political points.

While I agree in the main... there are plenty of cuts that can and should be made... not the least in (non-uniform) 'overhead'

At the least a 5% cut in non-uniform costs each year for four years... and maybe as much as 10%

Like in the private government must get more efficient producing more units (boots on the ground) for less cost (overhead)

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II cost this year 191 million each. For each of the years 2011-2015 tell them that the cost is either going to come down 5% per year... or we will buy 20% less aircraft. Tell me there isn't 10 million in the cost of that plane that can come down.

And since we did pay for development the US owns the design... if need be put it out to bid...

**ëàìèíàò** · 03-09-2010, 02:08 PM

any military spending needs to reflect our strategic position and aims.

aye Thorhammer, aye,

that bein' said, if our strategic position and aims include tryin' to turn Iraq into a flower 'o western democracy in the middle east...and also to vanquish the evil extremists in Afghanistan while also puttin' in a pro-west puppet regime there while also ensurin' stability across that blighted and unconquerable country...and proppin' up a corrupt government in Pakistan so we can continue our fight there...

we may need to triple our military spendin'.

*nods*

- MeadHallPirate

**DevaRextusidis** · 03-09-2010, 02:09 PM

*hugs the ultra partisan, Tsquare*

thank ye, thank ye, matey.

ye made me point fer me.

its....all....talk.

spendin' on our offensive industry is goin' UP. the talk about cuttin' be just that.

talk.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

Yet in the end it should not be all talk... nor will it be all talk.

**YonkFiorc** · 03-09-2010, 02:12 PM

It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar.

Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part.

Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security?

For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools.

What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems.

One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe

The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods.

Actually we are doing (and spending) for both... as the other side does not wish the population to be educated... especially the women. The solders being needed to defend the schools... and/or kill the bad guys.

**joanasevilyboaz** · 03-09-2010, 02:22 PM

Yet in the end it should not be all talk... nor will it be all talk.

*laughs and waves the white flag*

haha, alrighty Tsquare!

when them big cuts in military spendin' actually happen, ye can get back to me on this.

me point stands.

President Obama has not made big cuts (or any cuts) in military spendin'. he hath increased it.

now, as Woody Allan once said...

"Right...well i have to go now, Duane, because I'm due back on planet Earth."

*heads off to work*

- MeadHallPirate

**Beauseaccerce** · 03-09-2010, 02:46 PM

aye Thorhammer, aye,

that bein' said, if our strategic position and aims include tryin' to turn Iraq into a flower 'o western democracy in the middle east...and also to vanquish the evil extremists in Afghanistan while also puttin' in a pro-west puppet regime there while also ensurin' stability across that blighted and unconquerable country...and proppin' up a corrupt government in Pakistan so we can continue our fight there...

we may need to triple our military spendin'.

*nods*

- MeadHallPirate

That is certainly part of the problem.

A military is supposed to be a fighting force but now it's being used for nation building.

**sykanaxer** · 03-09-2010, 04:45 PM

If they cut military spending to half, we would be more or less back to year 2000 levels.

03-09-2010, 12:48 PM	#21
drugstore Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 437 Senior Member	It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar. Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part. Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security? For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools. What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems. One Soldier or 20 Schools \| TPMCafe The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods. You've got a point....at least the beginning of a point. Military strength isn't worth much if is used inappropriately. It's like having a basement full of new, shiny tools but still using a ratchet handle to pound nails. Also, diplomacy IS an important part of conflict resolution although one often gets more favorable results when that diplomacy is conducted from a position of strength. Our military was grown to address the threat of war in Europe and that priority held through the 80's. We then began a draw down because the world was "safer" with the fall of the Soviet Union. "Safer", as it turned out, was relative. Recently our primary threat hasn't been from one large opponent but, rather, several smaller opponents who are dispersed around the globe. To deal with that threat we scaled back troop strength but ramped up technology - very expensive technology. Today we are finding that we not only need the technology but that we also need the troop strength. I also want you to think about what this money spent primarily on military technology has purchased. WWII saw over 1,000,000 US dead and wounded. Korea saw nearly 150,000 and Vietnam saw more than 200,000. Compare that to Iraq where we have had less than 40,000 dead and wounded with less than 4000 of that total actually being combat deaths. In Afghanistan we have had less than 10,000 dead and wounded. Isn't the reduction in casualties worth anything? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 12:56 PM	#22
rengerts Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 493 Senior Member	lemme asks ye though, be it fair to view our military spendin' this way? 1) our military spendin' as it relates to our current national debt and... No, because this implies that the military is the primary driver of the debt, when it's more a result of too much entitlement spending. 2) even if our GDP has risen, what of it? i mean, if i waste 50k per year 'o me monies goin' to the casino and i make 100k per year....and my income jumps to 130K per year and increase me spendin' at the casino to 60K per year....aren't i still spendin' more? You are spending more on gambling, but you're spending more 'more' on non-gambling items, so it's not like you're financially neglecting your real responsibilities. Tho in this case, the military is the real responsibility. That's a fact, even if whether it may or may not be being neglected in favor of other expenses is a matter of opinion. our military goal shouldn't be parity with the rest of the world but, rather, should be "strong enough so that the others don't even think of fucking with us." If we have the resources, that indeed should be our goal. With our economy and future in trouble from too much entitlement spending, we may not be able to reach that goal, but military cuts should still be secondary to entitlement cuts. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 01:42 PM	#23
gettoblaster Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 634 Senior Member	No, because this implies that the military is the primary driver of the debt, when it's more a result of too much entitlement spending. You are spending more on gambling, but you're spending more 'more' on non-gambling items, so it's not like you're financially neglecting your real responsibilities. Tho in this case, the military is the real responsibility. That's a fact, even if whether it may or may not be being neglected in favor of other expenses is a matter of opinion. If we have the resources, that indeed should be our goal. With our economy and future in trouble from too much entitlement spending, we may not be able to reach that goal, but military cuts should still be secondary to entitlement cuts. enjoys his mornin' grog and nods to Evil_inKarlate avast ye, Evil_inKarlate! matey, i don't disagree with much that ye have scribed. yea, and more...i have posted, with great vigor, that them entitlements that ye mentioned should not just be adjusted, nay, i've been 'o the mind that they need to be eliminated. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...onomy-aye.html me main point 'o this thread, though, was simply this... them who claim that Mr. Obama be makin' big cuts in military spendin' (or any cuts, for that matter) are wrong. its not happenin'. so i'd ask folks to please stop repeatin' this bit 'o fiction. YARRR! - MeadHallPirate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 01:44 PM	#24
Derrida Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 372 Senior Member	For every dollar the federal government spends, they take in like 3 cents or something....everything needs to be cut, including the military budget...we need to live within our means. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 01:46 PM	#25
Ankeseiband Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 389 Senior Member	If military spending is to be cut then it should only be done if our strategic position dicates it. It should not, however, be done to simply win political points. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 01:49 PM	#26
IRYzouNv Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 477 Senior Member	If military spending is to be cut then it should only be done if our strategic position dicates it. It should not, however, be done to simply win political points. Hail thee, oh master 'o military issues on USPO! ye need not worry then, me hearty. military spendin' is goin' UP, not down, under the leadership 'o Mr. Obama. - MeadHallPirate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 01:54 PM	#27
styhorporry Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 391 Senior Member	Here you go... Joint Forces Command closure is part of bigger plan \| HamptonRoads.com \| PilotOnline.com Robert Gates' call for transforming the way the military does business might have seemed directly aimed at Hampton Roads, home to the only command he proposed eliminating Monday. But the secretary of defense's plan to shutter Joint Forces Command, which employs some 5,000 people in Norfolk and Suffolk, is part of a larger effort he's undertaken to overhaul the way the Pentagon buys weapons, employs contractors and spends billions duplicating its own work. His announcement may have caught many local officials off guard, but the reasoning behind it shouldn't surprise anyone. Gates has been sounding the alarm about unsustainable defense budgets for years. "The biggest challenge to our national security at the moment is that we might bankrupt the nation through excessive spending," Thompson said. "The bottom line here is if the department can't find efficiencies on its own, it will get plenty of help from Congress." In the meantime, defense contracting companies that specialize in systems engineering and technical assistance can expect to feel the bite from Gates' initiatives. Gates said funding for support contractors - not those working overseas, making equipment or building tanks and ships - will be reduced by 10 percent a year for the next three years. Harrison took that to mean that Gates believes that a third of the work those contractors are doing is unnecessary. "That doesn't bode well for the industry," he said. There you go... 'all that talk about cutting' Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 01:59 PM	#28
luffyplayaz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 455 Senior Member	Here you go... Joint Forces Command closure is part of bigger plan \| HamptonRoads.com \| PilotOnline.com There you go... 'all that talk about cutting' hugs the ultra partisan, Tsquare thank ye, thank ye, matey. ye made me point fer me. its....all....talk. spendin' on our offensive industry is goin' UP. the talk about cuttin' be just that. talk. bows - MeadHallPirate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:00 PM	#29
Arrecteve Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	I think the military should be cut somewhat, but a strong military is vital, and for all of the spending our government does, the only item that is constitutionally mandated is having a military. IMO a ~$450 billion defense budget would be $1,500 spent for every man woman and child in the US, which seems 'sufficient'. It would still be 5x what China spends, the next biggest military spender. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:01 PM	#30
Sliliashdes Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 375 Senior Member	Hail thee, oh master 'o military issues on USPO! ye need not worry then, me hearty. military spendin' is goin' UP, not down, under the leadership 'o Mr. Obama. - MeadHallPirate Well, to be honest, a spending increase isn't always a good thing either. Again, any military spending needs to reflect our strategic position and aims. I am sure we could be more efficient with our military spending and, thereby, drive down the overall $$$ amount. However, the 'bottom line' should never take priority over readiness. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:04 PM	#31
Kimaamighed Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security? For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools. What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems. reads RDK's post and muses hmmmf. interestin' post matey. somethin' fer us all to think about, aye. - MeadHallPirate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:07 PM	#32
pimbertiemoft Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 494 Senior Member	If military spending is to be cut then it should only be done if our strategic position dicates it. It should not, however, be done to simply win political points. While I agree in the main... there are plenty of cuts that can and should be made... not the least in (non-uniform) 'overhead' At the least a 5% cut in non-uniform costs each year for four years... and maybe as much as 10% Like in the private government must get more efficient producing more units (boots on the ground) for less cost (overhead) The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II cost this year 191 million each. For each of the years 2011-2015 tell them that the cost is either going to come down 5% per year... or we will buy 20% less aircraft. Tell me there isn't 10 million in the cost of that plane that can come down. And since we did pay for development the US owns the design... if need be put it out to bid... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:08 PM	#33
ëàìèíàò Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 427 Senior Member	any military spending needs to reflect our strategic position and aims. aye Thorhammer, aye, that bein' said, if our strategic position and aims include tryin' to turn Iraq into a flower 'o western democracy in the middle east...and also to vanquish the evil extremists in Afghanistan while also puttin' in a pro-west puppet regime there while also ensurin' stability across that blighted and unconquerable country...and proppin' up a corrupt government in Pakistan so we can continue our fight there... we may need to triple our military spendin'. nods - MeadHallPirate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:09 PM	#34
DevaRextusidis Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 445 Senior Member	hugs the ultra partisan, Tsquare thank ye, thank ye, matey. ye made me point fer me. its....all....talk. spendin' on our offensive industry is goin' UP. the talk about cuttin' be just that. talk. bows - MeadHallPirate Yet in the end it *should not* be all talk... nor *will it be all talk*. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:12 PM	#35
YonkFiorc Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 425 Senior Member	It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar. Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part. Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security? For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools. What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems. One Soldier or 20 Schools \| TPMCafe The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods. Actually we are doing (and spending) for both... as the other side does not wish the population to be educated... especially the women. The solders being needed to defend the schools... and/or kill the bad guys. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

03-09-2010, 02:22 PM	#36
joanasevilyboaz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 394 Senior Member	Yet in the end it *should not* be all talk... nor *will it be all talk. laughs and waves the white flag* haha, alrighty Tsquare! when them big cuts in military spendin' actually happen, ye can get back to me on this. me point stands. President Obama has not made big cuts (or any cuts) in military spendin'. he hath increased it. now, as Woody Allan once said... "Right...well i have to go now, Duane, because I'm due back on planet Earth." heads off to work - MeadHallPirate Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 02:46 PM	#37
Beauseaccerce Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 443 Senior Member	aye Thorhammer, aye, that bein' said, if our strategic position and aims include tryin' to turn Iraq into a flower 'o western democracy in the middle east...and also to vanquish the evil extremists in Afghanistan while also puttin' in a pro-west puppet regime there while also ensurin' stability across that blighted and unconquerable country...and proppin' up a corrupt government in Pakistan so we can continue our fight there... we may need to triple our military spendin'. nods - MeadHallPirate That is certainly part of the problem. A military is supposed to be a fighting force but now it's being used for nation building. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-09-2010, 04:45 PM	#38
sykanaxer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 390 Senior Member	If they cut military spending to half, we would be more or less back to year 2000 levels. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote