[Unergerah]

Goober, its not the soldiers that didn't complete the mission in A-Stan, it was the Bush administration. With numbers in the 30,000s for the first seven years, the soldiers they did as good of a job as they possibly could. Now with real leadership and commitment you are starting to see real results.

smurf what kind of crack are you smoking? The neocon Bush administration people decided A-Stan was not a priority and sent 130,000 troops to Iraq instead. That you try to blame liberals for something the Bush admin is 100% responsible for is retarded. Just about everyone supported the invasion of A-Stan anyways so I don't even know how you infer that "liberals" would have been against turning it into rubble or whatever you mean. How does it make you feel that a Democratic administration is actually going to see it though properly?

What you fail to understand is that 30,000 soldiers would have been more than enough to turn Afghanistan into an overwhelming victory, if our military was actually allowed to bring its full power (no, not nukes) to bear. Since Viet Nam, the liberals in this country have allowed the specter of dead innocents, also known as collateral damage, to hamstring our military from winning. When the enemy uses guerrilla tactics, like hiding amongst civilians, we are especially put at a disadvantage. Now you have been educated on the subject. Go and whine no more.

"See it through properly"?

We will still be in Afghanistan long after Carter, I mean Uh-bama, is gone from the White House.

Democrats: strong on deficit reduction and strong on national security. That's their record. They just need to sell it.

Now that is some extra strength crack.

[Jffxljtw]

Just being objective, but I see you brought your pom-poms so lead the cheers for the big pep rally.
But a really good military that was worth that kind of money, would have finished up in Afghanistan about 6 years ago.

wanna answer my question goober?


Goober-
For all the money we spend on our military, when push comes to shove they are pathetically average, if that. Imperator-
humm, okay, can you provide some examples or justification for that statement?

[mygalinasoo]

There was an interesting article in the January (or Feb?) Scientific American about the realistic weather impact of a "limited" nuclear exchange. They used the example of Pakistan and India exchanging their arms on each other - the smoke and debris in the atmosphere would effectively eliminate agriculture for several years.

Arguably, while there is an unfortunate need for a deterrent, there is clearly no need for 1000s of nuclear weapons. Any country that can realistically detonate a dozen can hold the world hostage in many ways.

[verizon]

Rank Country Spending ($ b.)

1 US 607.0
2 China 84.9
3 France 65.7
4 UK 65.3
5 Russia 58.6
6 Germany 46.8
7 Japan 46.3
8 Italy 40.6
9 Saudis 38.2
10 India 30.0
11 S. Korea 24.2
12 Brazil 23.3
13 Canada 19.3
14 Spain 19.2
15 Australia 18.4

Cmon...you can't get by with say, $400B?

Think about how many countries on that list we protect military. We provide the majority of the defense spending for 10 of the 14 countries on that list (other than ourselves of course), not to mention dozens of other countries (all of the NATO countries not listed above for instance). Don't you think that might impact our defense spending just a little?

[TSVIDeo]

What you fail to understand is that 30,000 soldiers would have been more than enough to turn Afghanistan into an overwhelming victory, if our military was actually allowed to bring its full power (no, not nukes) to bear. Since Viet Nam, the liberals in this country have allowed the specter of dead innocents, also known as collateral damage, to hamstring our military from winning. When the enemy uses guerrilla tactics, like hiding amongst civilians, we are especially put at a disadvantage. Now you have been educated on the subject. Go and whine no more.

"See it through properly"?

We will still be in Afghanistan long after Carter, I mean Uh-bama, is gone from the White House.



Now that is some extra strength crack.

Yes smirf you win: If the military decided to bomb anywhere the opposition might be without even the slightest regard for civilians you could "turn the country into rubble" faster. Forget ideology. What kind of sane person would advocate such a thing? Do you understand what your saying?

[Xzmwskxn]

Think about how many countries on that list we protect military. We provide the majority of the defense spending for 10 of the 14 countries on that list (other than ourselves of course), not to mention dozens of other countries (all of the NATO countries not listed above for instance). Don't you think that might impact our defense spending just a little?

Definitely.

[Sx1qBli0]

The funny thing is, you guys all think the 600 or 700 billion dollars the US spends as part of the defense budget includes maintenance of the nukes. Nuke maintenance is actually part of the non-defense budget, its part of the budget of the Department of Energy.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our country spends closer to 1 Trillion annually on military expenses, not including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are extra on top of THAT.

After all, if our military expenses are 1/4th of the budget, shouldn't 1/4th of our interest payments on the debt ALSO be included as "military expenses"? Thats how a private business would have to expense interest payments for its operations. Shouldn't nuke maintenance be part of our defense budget? .... but its not. Shouldn't VA and veteran's benefits be considered part of the defense budget? ... but they're not. What about homeland security? .... its not.

1 trillion dollars is a much closer figure for what we spend annually on defense. Roughly 5-6 times our closest rival.

*nods to the Disillusioned_1*

right you are mate, well said.

a while back, thar was alot 'o spirited talk on a thread that was 'bout cuttin' government spendin'. a host 'o USPO folks spoke with great conviction about cuttin' the DoE, since they figured it served no purpose....somethin' that convinced me that people have no idear what the DoE does.

the monies spent on our offense industry be truly amazin'...its hard fer me to fathom.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

[ashleyjoseph]

Think about how many countries on that list we protect military. We provide the majority of the defense spending for 10 of the 14 countries on that list (other than ourselves of course), not to mention dozens of other countries (all of the NATO countries not listed above for instance). Don't you think that might impact our defense spending just a little?

Hail Ericams2786,

i have a question mate, and imma askin' in all honesty...

if we accept that our mighty and wealthy nation spent 1 trillion dollars or so on our military endeavors, could you (or one 'o our military experts) tell me what countries we were defendin'?

what country be it, specifically, that we are defendin'?

and who, specfically, are we defendin' them from?

i asks because i hear this refrain often, so lookin' back at 2009, what weaklin' countries were were defendin'?

*waits for a reply*

- MeadHallPirate

[kanchouska]

the monies spend on our offense industry be truly amazin'...its hard fer me to fathom.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Thanks for being the only one to notice my post.

Here's how to fathom it. There are about 300 million Americans and our country spends 1 trillion dollars a year on military expenses. That's about $3,333 for every man, woman, and child each year. If we assume 2 income earners per household and 2 kids or non-taxpayers per household, that means every single person paying taxes is paying about $7,000 per year for our offense industry.

That's the $7,000 pound gorilla in everyone's living room that noone will discuss, certainly not the bipartisan congress or the media which benefits greatly from our wars.

[Agitoligflise]

Think about how many countries on that list we protect military. We provide the majority of the defense spending for 10 of the 14 countries on that list (other than ourselves of course), not to mention dozens of other countries (all of the NATO countries not listed above for instance). Don't you think that might impact our defense spending just a little?

Maybe those countries could pitch a little more money into the pot?

[erepsysoulptnw]

a lot of that money goes to the defense of Germany, Japan, South Korea...

What we should do is sell the technology that is one rung lower then our best to everyone else and let them kill each other...

[juspimoubbodo]

a lot of that money goes to the defense of Germany, Japan, South Korea...

What we should do is sell the technology that is one rung lower then our best to everyone else and let them kill each other...

*nods to CSA*

matey, if yer a military expert, i thank ye fer answerin' me question. if i may be allowed a followup...

last year, if we spent hundreds and hundreds 'o billions 'o dollars protectin' Germany, South Korea and Japan, who were protectin' them from, exactly?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

[Qvqnubpj]

We were clearly protecting the Germans from the French.

[evarekataVame]

We were clearly protecting the Germans from the French.

No, you won´t close the bloody border.
I wanna keep going to France for shopping at the weekends and you´re not going to intervene.
If you as much as try I´ll chase you back to the USA with my umbrella.

[Gudronich]

Deflecting comets and asteroids on a collision course with Earth.

Other than that I don't want to use them. Given the choice, I'd sooner chase the Soviets all the way to the Urals from both ends than let MAD get going.

But that ship has sailed.

Everybody knows that nukes would simply fragment the object, probably making the impacts worse

No objectivity at all, just dripping venom for the people and institutions that do the dirty work so that you can live your pampered little liberal life.

The U.S. military could have turned Afghanistan into rubble if they were so allowed, but whining liberals like yourself always bitch about the collateral damage. So we put our men in more danger to fight carefully so that we minimize collateral damage, and then you whining liberals bitch that we're not winning the war fast enough. I think the common denominator is that regardless of what, or how well, the military does, whining liberals bitch about it.

So OK, for a trillion dollars we get a group who can either kill everone in a country or is consistently defeated by what amount to fucking bandits. Fer Crissake we started this country by winning a guerilla war and since then have lost every one like that we've gotten involved in. I think it comes down to our national character. Americans root for the underdog even while we're doing our best to kill him. No matter how strong we might become or justified we might be we don't like being the bad guys

We were clearly protecting the Germans from the French.

Napoleon XIV will rule a United World, Vive L'Empereur

[Soolfelpecelf]

No, you won´t close the bloody border.
I wanna keep going to France for shopping at the weekends and you´re not going to intervene.
If you as much as try I´ll chase you back to the USA with my umbrella.

Just don't take all the choucroute garni!

[Lolita Palmer]

Yes smirf you win: If the military decided to bomb anywhere the opposition might be without even the slightest regard for civilians you could "turn the country into rubble" faster. Forget ideology. What kind of sane person would advocate such a thing? Do you understand what your saying?

I am saying that guerrilla tactics succeed because we allow them to succeed. If enemy fighters are going to hide amongst civilians, they bear more responsibility than we do when civilians die.

The point is that our military is top notch. We can defeat anyone we choose to defeat. The problem isn't that we can't win in Afghanistan, as goober likes to pretend is the truth. The problem is that there are far too many liberals who won't let us win in Afghanistan, because winning that type of war is particularly messy.

[SeelaypeKet]

So OK, for a trillion dollars we get a group who can either kill everone in a country or is consistently defeated by what amount to fucking bandits. Fer Crissake we started this country by winning a guerilla war and since then have lost every one like that we've gotten involved in. I think it comes down to our national character. Americans root for the underdog even while we're doing our best to kill him. No matter how strong we might become or justified we might be we don't like being the bad guys

It certainly does involve national character. Too many Americans live the plush life without realizing that sometimes brave men and women with very lethal weaponry must use that weaponry to kill others. They can not equate the killing of others (which they abhor) with the pampered existence they enjoy (to which they feel entitled). There is no war we can not win. There are only wars which those with no stomach force us not to win.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

wanna answer my question goober?


Goober-


Imperator-

Why don't you list the accomplishments of the most expensive military in the history of the planet, that white sheet of paper in front of you when you're done will be my answer.

What exactly do we get for 600 billion a year?
Protection from a country that hasn't existed for 20 years?
The ability to get bogged down in extremely expensive conflicts, that go on for years, but are of little or no strategic importance.
You can have extremely brave and courageous warriors who at the same time are a complete waste of time and money.
I'm just pointing out that the military is of little or no value to the country, it's a waste of time and money, and it should be drastically reduced in size.

How's that list comin'

[UJRonald]

I am saying that guerrilla tactics succeed because we allow them to succeed. If enemy fighters are going to hide amongst civilians, they bear more responsibility than we do when civilians die.

The point is that our military is top notch. We can defeat anyone we choose to defeat. The problem isn't that we can't win in Afghanistan, as goober likes to pretend is the truth. The problem is that there are far too many liberals who won't let us win in Afghanistan, because winning that type of war is particularly messy.

So if a gang member shoots into a crowd in an attempt to kill a rival gang member, who's fault are the bystanders' deaths?