First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Looking back on it

Blairsville, GA

#1 Nov 5, 2012
America spends more on it's military than do the next thirteen nations COMBINED, and that includes Russia and China! It is without a doubt the largest, most powerful, best equippted, best trained army the world has ever known and should WW II flare up again, we'd win inside of maybe a year, two at the most.

Yet despite all our firepower, all our muscles, we can't win a war in the 21st century.

Keep telling yourself that our military insures our freedom and that the expenditures are therefore justified! It isn't true. It's all about profits.
Amos_1

Cleveland, GA

#2 Nov 5, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
America spends more on it's military than do the next thirteen nations COMBINED, and that includes Russia and China! It is without a doubt the largest, most powerful, best equippted, best trained army the world has ever known and should WW II flare up again, we'd win inside of maybe a year, two at the most.
Yet despite all our firepower, all our muscles, we can't win a war in the 21st century.
Keep telling yourself that our military insures our freedom and that the expenditures are therefore justified! It isn't true. It's all about profits.


What you say is probably true. What you leave out is that the military expenditures make up 1/5 of federal spending. Would that amount be refunded back to the taxpayers? I think not, the pork barrel train would keep running, just on different tracks.........

Looking back on it

Blairsville, GA

#3 Nov 5, 2012
Amos_1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you say is probably true. What you leave out is that the military expenditures make up 1/5 of federal spending. Would that amount be refunded back to the taxpayers? I think not, the pork barrel train would keep running, just on different tracks.........
You're right. It also accounts for 6.2 million jobs, not including the men and women in uniform.

I just get tired of politicians, and others, saying we must have a strong military to protect our freedom. A strong standing military? Sure. By all means, but ours is way out of hand. The $500 billion cut (over ten years) is reasonable. Romney saying he'll add $2 trillion(!) more to DODs budget (over ten years) isn't.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#4 Nov 5, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. It also accounts for 6.2 million jobs, not including the men and women in uniform.
I just get tired of politicians, and others, saying we must have a strong military to protect our freedom. A strong standing military? Sure. By all means, but ours is way out of hand. The $500 billion cut (over ten years) is reasonable. Romney saying he'll add $2 trillion(!) more to DODs budget (over ten years) isn't.
I agree with you but we must look beyond the rhetoric of politicians and look at the reality of things. You cannot make cuts and add to at the same time. That is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. I still believe that Romney is the best choice for the country even though he has learned the politician talk very well.
Amos_1

Cleveland, GA

#5 Nov 5, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. It also accounts for 6.2 million jobs, not including the men and women in uniform.
I just get tired of politicians, and others, saying we must have a strong military to protect our freedom. A strong standing military? Sure. By all means, but ours is way out of hand. The $500 billion cut (over ten years) is reasonable. Romney saying he'll add $2 trillion(!) more to DODs budget (over ten years) isn't.
Actually Romney didnt say that, his critics did. Here is what was really said about military spending..........
"The Romney campaign has said that it would like to see spending for Defense increased to 4% of GDP. In May, Travis Sharp from the Center for a New American Security worked for CNN Money to calculate that raising defense spending to that percentage of GDP would be the same as $2.1 trillion in additional spending over the next 10 years.
Obama appears to be saying that the military hasn’t asked for that spending because the Department of Defense has submitted budgets based on strategic interests that are in line with Obama administration cuts over the next decade.
On the Romney campaign website you find this quote:
“This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it. Mitt will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending — meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development — at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.”
Current Defense spending levels are estimated to be 3.5 for what’s called base Defense spending.
Previous supporters of increasing that to 4% GDP include former Defense Secretary Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen.
On November 26, 2007 at the Alf Landon lecture then Defense Secretary Gates said military spending then by adding the costs of the wars pushed military spending to 4%. He called that percentage serves as a benchmark,as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense.” Here’s the full quote “Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods. Nonetheless, we use this benchmark as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense. We lack a similar benchmark for other departments and institutions.
On February 1, 2008 Adm. Mike Mullen said;
I believe that we need to have a broad public discussion about what we should spend on defense. I’ve been very clear about my belief that a 4 percent floor, a 4 percent of GDP floor is really that, and I am concerned and I — this comes from my evolution as a service chief, where we worked very hard to efficiently and effectively invest for the future, and in that development, I’ve gotten to a point where I think — I really do believe — this 4 percent floor is important. And it’s — and it’s really important, given the world we’re living in, given the threats that we see out there, the risks that are, in fact, global, not just in the Middle East, and that we as a nation need to be very careful about how we’re going to invest in defense in order to handle these kinds of challenges which are going to — while will persist for the foreseeable future."
Looking back on it

Blairsville, GA

#6 Nov 5, 2012
Amos_1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Romney didnt say that, his critics did. Here is what was really said about military spending..........
"The Romney campaign has said that it would like to see spending for Defense increased to 4% of GDP. In May, Travis Sharp from the Center for a New American Security worked for CNN Money to calculate that raising defense spending to that percentage of GDP would be the same as $2.1 trillion in additional spending over the next 10 years.
Have you looked at his web-site or read any...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klei...
Looking back on it

Blairsville, GA

#7 Nov 5, 2012
In all fairness it should be pointed out that the President DOES NOT determine the military budget (or any of the departments for that matter) the same as he CAN NOT borrow money (the public debt) or raise taxes or do anything having to do with funding - ONLY Congress can do that!
Amos_1

Cleveland, GA

#8 Nov 5, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
In all fairness it should be pointed out that the President DOES NOT determine the military budget (or any of the departments for that matter) the same as he CAN NOT borrow money (the public debt) or raise taxes or do anything having to do with funding - ONLY Congress can do that!


I agree with you on this. It's really determined by party members, for or against, military spending and national defense.

for the greater good

Dawsonville, GA

#9 Nov 6, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
America spends more on it's military than do the next thirteen nations COMBINED, and that includes Russia and China! It is without a doubt the largest, most powerful, best equippted, best trained army the world has ever known and should WW II flare up again, we'd win inside of maybe a year, two at the most.
Yet despite all our firepower, all our muscles, we can't win a war in the 21st century.
Keep telling yourself that our military insures our freedom and that the expenditures are therefore justified! It isn't true. It's all about profits.
It's ashame that is has to be about profits.
America can win a war we just have to get rid of halliburton and blackwater now called by another name.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#10 Nov 6, 2012
Great thread.

Ever ask who we are supposed to be "defending" against with this huge military ? Those British might return - you never know.

Ever ask why no other country on the planet feels the need to base their troops in other countries like we do ?- Seen and Russian or Chinese bases in Canada lately ?

Ever ask how stupid we appear to other countries, who use their tax dollars to build infrastructure, and provide healthcare, housing, and education to their citizens, while we bankrupt ourselves to "protect" them from an enemy they don't even believe exists ?

Are we Americans so afraid of the boogeyman we will destroy our economy, and our children's futures on this ludicrous War Department ?

My friends in Costa Rica say it's because American males are not as well endowed as others, and so they need big planes and ships, to compensate. I tell him he's wrong, but who really knows ?
Looking back on it

Blairsville, GA

#11 Nov 6, 2012
for the greater good wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ashame that is has to be about profits.
America can win a war we just have to get rid of halliburton and blackwater now called by another name.
We can defeat any army that would dare go up against us on a battlefield but times have changed and so has war. Battlefields are no longer. Today's wars are fought on the ethernet and in stealth, and victory is achieved only when minds of men are changed by persuasion, NOT by force of arms.

America, with its huge army has become the war-monger and a disgrace to what were our core beliefs.
blairsville devil

Zephyrhills, FL

#12 Nov 6, 2012
Looking back,You are very correct.This country has evolved to the lowest of the low,war mongers.The german woman was correct when she conpaired bush to Hitler.She was forced to resign her position. as I wrote on Blairsville .com several years ago,we will gain nothing but hate and death for the evil acts this country has caused others,that includes many citizens of the United States.Might doesn't make right.
Looking back on it

Blairsville, GA

#13 Nov 6, 2012
I about puke every time I hear someone proclaim with absolute certainty that our army "protects our freedom." It's just the opposite.

I love my country but have come to hate the government.

A vet (ret.)
'Nam, class of '68 and '72
blairsville devil

Zephyrhills, FL

#14 Nov 6, 2012
L.Back.I am glad that we share the same opinion,on this subject.If you have been reading my posts ,you know something about me.I am much more than just an atheist.MY brother,tet offensive vet(Fifth Special Forces) died two weeks ago from the effects of agent orange.Real patriotic people don't agree with the slogan ,My country right or wrong.That's my opinion and you are always right.
Amos_1

Cleveland, GA

#15 Nov 6, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
I about puke every time I hear someone proclaim with absolute certainty that our army "protects our freedom." It's just the opposite.
I love my country but have come to hate the government.
A vet (ret.)
'Nam, class of '68 and '72


Our Army protects our Freedom..........

so go and pukes your heads off..........

Amos_1

Cleveland, GA

#16 Nov 6, 2012
Informed Opinion wrote:
Great thread.
Ever ask who we are supposed to be "defending" against with this huge military ? Those British might return - you never know.
Ever ask why no other country on the planet feels the need to base their troops in other countries like we do ?- Seen and Russian or Chinese bases in Canada lately ?
Ever ask how stupid we appear to other countries, who use their tax dollars to build infrastructure, and provide healthcare, housing, and education to their citizens, while we bankrupt ourselves to "protect" them from an enemy they don't even believe exists ?
Are we Americans so afraid of the boogeyman we will destroy our economy, and our children's futures on this ludicrous War Department ?
My friends in Costa Rica say it's because American males are not as well endowed as others, and so they need big planes and ships, to compensate. I tell him he's wrong, but who really knows ?


The onlys big stick youse gots is in your minds..........youse the types that would haves a wiggly wormy........



All you boys have lost yourn senses.... if lefts ups to youse America would roll over and extend its belly to anyone who wants to destroy us........this country would still be under the thrumb of a king, excepts now it would be the Queen of Welfare.....


Yall's be the kinds thats homeland security would takes a hard looks at..........which is the future of America thanks to the socialists..........




for the greater good

Dawsonville, GA

#17 Nov 6, 2012
Looking back on it wrote:
<quoted text>
We can defeat any army that would dare go up against us on a battlefield but times have changed and so has war. Battlefields are no longer. Today's wars are fought on the ethernet and in stealth, and victory is achieved only when minds of men are changed by persuasion, NOT by force of arms.
America, with its huge army has become the war-monger and a disgrace to what were our core beliefs.
I agree with you somewhat, howwhere I believe some wars must me fought such as afghanistan. But I was against Iraq it did not have to be fought, it was just rumsfelds war. Having family members in the Army and navy, I was among the first be against the iraq war back when it was unpopular to say anything about iraq.
Informed Opinion

Hollywood, FL

#18 Nov 6, 2012
for the greater good wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you somewhat, howwhere I believe some wars must me fought such as afghanistan. But I was against Iraq it did not have to be fought, it was just rumsfelds war. Having family members in the Army and navy, I was among the first be against the iraq war back when it was unpopular to say anything about iraq.
The Russians did so well in Afghanistan, it's great we are spending hundreds of billions to emulate their fine example.

I feel better knowing billions of my tax dollars are being spent to bribe drug dealers, Muslim extremists, and bribe a corrupt government to let us occasionally drop a bomb on someone over there, even if only to shake the rubble.

Support out troops - bring them home.
for the greater good

Jefferson, GA

#19 Nov 7, 2012
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Russians did so well in Afghanistan, it's great we are spending hundreds of billions to emulate their fine example.
I feel better knowing billions of my tax dollars are being spent to bribe drug dealers, Muslim extremists, and bribe a corrupt government to let us occasionally drop a bomb on someone over there, even if only to shake the rubble.
Support out troops - bring them home.
informed opinion, would you prefer that we have let bin laden go, or leave women and children in the hands of the taliban?
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#20 Nov 8, 2012
for the greater good wrote:
<quoted text>informed opinion, would you prefer that we have let bin laden go, or leave women and children in the hands of the taliban?
OK with me if the Taliban runs Afghanistan. I don't want my son to die so that the Regular Muslim Drug Lord gets to kick out the Taliban Drug Lord over there.

Let Afghanistan people fight an die for their country if they want, not my son.

I learned something watching every nation there ever invaded Afghanistan go broke trying to control a country that likes living in the Stone Age.

Obama used a Navy Seal Team with high tech support to kill bin Laden.

We don't need eleven aircraft carrier task forces that cost, costing a $Trillion dollars, three new nuclear attack submarines, every year, costing $2 Billion each, bases in hundreds of countries around the world, new fighter aircraft at hundreds of millions each,( that are unsafe to pilot), and another $Trillion each year to kill an old man hiding in a suburb.

Bush's protection of bin Ladens, his family's friends and business partners showed that bankrupting ourselves to have a bigger War Department than the rest of the world combined, didn't help at all.

Also, bin Laden was like abortion to the corporations that bought the Republicans, they needed bin Laden running free to be a continuing danger, the last thing they wanted was him gone. Just like abortion, the day Roe v. Wade is overturned, Karl Rove will cry, how else is he going to get much of the Republican base, those who are decimated by Republican policy, to keep voting against their own interests.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mineral Bluff Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
tanyard aprtments (Jan '11) 49 min Robin 39
Isn't politics ineresting 2 hr Granny 3
Garbage pickup service (Sep '09) 2 hr Blairsville Has S... 120
Question to Lamar 2 hr Owl Town Ollie 4
End of Days 2 hr Granny 2
Amy queen saga 4 hr Team Amy 17
Matt Dillon 4 hr Ms Kitty 2

Mineral Bluff News Video

Mineral Bluff Dating
Find my Match

Mineral Bluff Jobs

Mineral Bluff People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Mineral Bluff News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Mineral Bluff

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]