More Than 53% of Your US Tax Payment Goes to the Military - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 04-14-2010, 07:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

What haven't we done to defend western europe? we joined ww1, we then joined ww2 and fought Germany before fighting the Japanese the country that actually attacked us. We rebuilt europe after ww2, we then maintained the peace in western europe and kept the soviets from invading.



We stepped into the Indochina War for France because they couldn't fight their own war to keep their colony, you might know it better as the Vietnam War, our involvement in the middle east and Africa is a result of our helping our western european cousins manage their former colonies.



During the Iraq Iran war we ensured western europes oil would keep flowing throught the Straits of Hurmoz, we provide the majority of Peace Keeping forces during the Yogoslavian Civil War and through our very presence in the region we continue to protect them from each other..... historically speaking prior to our perment presence in Western Europe they had a major war aprox every 20 yrs or so, if we were not there we more than likely would have seen at least 2 probably 3 major wars over the last 70 yrs.

We also supplied Communist Russia with billions in lend-lease aid among other things. If there's a country who did more during the early and middle part of the last century to help Communism prosper, it would be the United States. I'm more looking at recent times though. There is no strong country that poses a threat to Western Europe. Considering our past of changing allies and enemies constantly, I'd argue the United States poses a bigger threat to Western Europe than any other country. There's no other strong country these days. With a good immigration policy, terrorism shouldn't be much of a threat either. My guess is they're more watching over these countries to ensure they do what the United States wants. It makes more sense than to "defend" countries which have few enemies.
rainforests1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 04-14-2010, 07:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Now, if we just went back to indiscriminately carpet bombing cities, we'd probably make things a lot cheaper, and heck, we'd probably win the war (if for no other reason than that sooner or later, the other side is going to run out of people to fight), but obviously the abuse of human rights makes that abhorrent.

An important issue here is that with a quick war, the many American companies who build up our weapons would be struggling. The war machine got us out of the recession back in World War 2 when Roosevelt's policies just weren't good enough, and we've constantly been at war or providing support for a war since then. We've caused all kinds of misery towards civilians in many, many countries so I hope you're not making this look like a human rights issue.
rainforests1 is offline  
#33 Old 04-14-2010, 04:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

An important issue here is that with a quick war, the many American companies who build up our weapons would be struggling. The war machine got us out of the recession back in World War 2 when Roosevelt's policies just weren't good enough, and we've constantly been at war or providing support for a war since then. We've caused all kinds of misery towards civilians in many, many countries so I hope you're not making this look like a human rights issue.



Why isn't indiscriminate bombing a human right's issue?



Heck, we can't even shoot a reporter with a camera without it being headline news.



Carpet bombing indiscriminately would be a huge no-no.
das_nut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 04-15-2010, 01:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

My concern is waste. We have all heard about miliatary vehicles that the Pentagon doesn't want but keep on buying because a politican wants to keep the jobs in their state.

military contractors are really good that, dividing up the project into various states and districts to get the votes. dick cheney wanted to kill the v-22 osprey for years to no avail.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...665835,00.html

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
#35 Old 04-15-2010, 02:23 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Why isn't indiscriminate bombing a human right's issue?



Heck, we can't even shoot a reporter with a camera without it being headline news.



Carpet bombing indiscriminately would be a huge no-no.



Carpet bombing, agent orange use and other indiscriminate killings of civilians didn't really help the USA in Vietnam, did it? Again, the point is the US military is inept, ineffectual and a huge waste of money. Its amazing that some people would rather throw money at this ineffectual organisation that creates terrorists instead of using that money to build schools, hospitals, feed the hungry and house the homeless. Talk about mixed up priorities. Some people would rather millions be spent on killing women and children in Afghanistan than in taking care of American women and children's basic needs.
MrFalafel is offline  
#36 Old 04-15-2010, 04:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

that would be horrific if the US economy was stagnant since world war II. most people pay attention to military spending as a percent of GDP. some nations like japan have historically made it matter of principal to limit military spending to a certain percentage of GDP (japan's old 1 percent rule, which they haven't deviated from significantly either).



i don't have the authors entire recipe for cooking the books. i don't even have a harsh rebuttal frankly but it's an overly simplistic picture that's similar to ones advanced before where one cuts out all the non-discretionary spending. anyone will tell you that the large entitlements need to be confronted and difficult choices will have to be made. more than the health insurance reform bill that was just passed. exactly how one gets to 53 percent, whatever i consider that to be bull**** to grab the headlines and i don't really consider it worth haggling over since the author admits it immediately in the article.



consider that the development of the internet was a defense project. relating something to defense in some way helps it get funding.



The thing I was pointing out is that Defense related spending in total is probably significantly more than is depicted on the pie chart. I don't know about 53%, but whatever the case may be close to a trillion or so a year is A LOT OF MONEY!



Yeah, the entitlement programs are costing us a lot of money too. At this juncture with two wars going on still reducing defense spending significantly is probably not possible. But at least Robert Gates has tried to make procurement more rational and is trying to get the nation's defenses to be more in line with the types of missions it is most likely to face. In the long run, there has to be a way to realize savings because spending a trillion dollars a year on defense related items makes it much harder to do the things that I believe to be better targets for our tax dollars: helping people, infrastructure, investment in R & D and the general welfare. We need to figure out what we can pay for the entitlements and how to fund them properly too. But defense related spending has to be on the table and not viewed as it is by some as sacrosanct because it is bankrupting us too just like all the other spending.
Savannah is offline  
#37 Old 04-15-2010, 08:30 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Carpet bombing, agent orange use and other indiscriminate killings of civilians didn't really help the USA in Vietnam, did it? Again, the point is the US military is inept, ineffectual and a huge waste of money. Its amazing that some people would rather throw money at this ineffectual organisation that creates terrorists instead of using that money to build schools, hospitals, feed the hungry and house the homeless. Talk about mixed up priorities. Some people would rather millions be spent on killing women and children in Afghanistan than in taking care of American women and children's basic needs.



I don't think you realize or understand the cost for your safe little corner of the world.

Lets all sing:

Kumbaya My Lord
BarryKay is offline  
#38 Old 04-15-2010, 08:41 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryKay View Post

I don't think you realize or understand the cost for your safe little corner of the world.

Lets all sing:

Kumbaya My Lord



Golly I had no idea the Vietnamese posed a direct threat to the UK! Please tell me more!
MrFalafel is offline  
#39 Old 04-15-2010, 09:02 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Golly I had no idea the Vietnamese posed a direct threat to the UK! Please tell me more!

Guess your not that old and the bigger picture eludes you:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztYwQhKrTJQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE
BarryKay is offline  
#40 Old 04-15-2010, 09:03 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
I never knew Khrushchev was Vietnamese
MrFalafel is offline  
#41 Old 04-15-2010, 09:08 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

I never knew Khrushchev was Vietnamese



OK, you're not that old.
BarryKay is offline  
#42 Old 04-15-2010, 09:11 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 150
Here is your safe little world Mr Falafal:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncidents,_2010
BarryKay is offline  
#43 Old 04-15-2010, 09:39 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryKay View Post

Here is your safe little world Mr Falafal:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncidents,_2010



Do you think the US military in Iraq killing innocent women and children creates more or less terrorists?



Do you think US military bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan creates more or less terrorists?



Do you think the US ousting democratically elected leaders and installing vicious dictators in Iran in the 1950s created more or less terrorists?



Do you think the US giving the Taliban huge amounts of weaponry in the 1980s created more or less terrorists?







The sad reality is the inept and wasteful US military creates more terrorists than it kills. If you want to stop terrorism at home, pull your troops out of everywhere and bring them home.
MrFalafel is offline  
#44 Old 04-15-2010, 10:04 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Do you think the US military in Iraq killing innocent women and children creates more or less terrorists?



Do you think US military bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan creates more or less terrorists?



Do you think the US ousting democratically elected leaders and installing vicious dictators in Iran in the 1950s created more or less terrorists?



Do you think the US giving the Taliban huge amounts of weaponry in the 1980s created more or less terrorists?









The sad reality is the inept and wasteful US military creates more terrorists than it kills. If you want to stop terrorism at home, pull your troops out of everywhere and bring them home.



Now try the mixing of ideals and reality.
BarryKay is offline  
#45 Old 04-15-2010, 12:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
There is a withdrawal plan in place.



Quote:
"We will continue with the responsible removal of the United States forces from Iraq," Obama said, repeating that the U.S. combat mission would conclude at the end of August.



"We will continue to advise and assist Iraqi security forces, carry out targeted counterterrorism operations with our Iraqi partners and protect our forces and civilians. And by the end of the next year, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq," he said.





"But like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq must be free to chart its own course. No one should seek to influence, exploit, or disrupt this period of transition. Now is the time for every neighbor and nation to respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity."



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN07132640
hollywoodveg is offline  
#46 Old 04-15-2010, 03:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Why isn't indiscriminate bombing a human right's issue?



Heck, we can't even shoot a reporter with a camera without it being headline news.



Carpet bombing indiscriminately would be a huge no-no.



Of course it's a human rights issue. I was just saying that, given the US Government's track record, human rights likely has little to nothing to do with why we wouldn't destroy cities.
rainforests1 is offline  
#47 Old 04-15-2010, 03:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Do you think the US ousting democratically elected leaders and installing vicious dictators in Iran in the 1950s created more or less terrorist

I've heard of the Shah of Iran being a close ally but I haven't heard of any before that. Who are these dictators you're referring to?
rainforests1 is offline  
#48 Old 04-15-2010, 04:43 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I think he's referring to Ellen. During her worst Hitler phase, the US military supplied her with 8,901 marines, a few tanks and a nuclear sub.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#49 Old 04-15-2010, 05:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryKay View Post

Guess your not that old and the bigger picture eludes you:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztYwQhKrTJQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE



You must be like, 100.
Eleven is offline  
#50 Old 04-15-2010, 09:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Do you think the US giving the Taliban huge amounts of weaponry in the 1980s created more or less terrorists?



Don't you mean "Do you think that the US supporting 'freedom fighters' in the 1980s created more or less terrorists?"



I'm a tad confused though. You seem to be criticizing the US for supporting insurrections in the same post where you're criticizing the US for attacking insurrections.



Perhaps what the US should do is have a beer summit instead.



That'll patch things right up.
das_nut is offline  
#51 Old 04-15-2010, 10:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
suchgreatheight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellye View Post

This. I'm one of those "pull everybody home and defend the freaking homeland" American isolationists though. Why the hell does America want to be Chief World Police anyway? It's a thankless job, and an obscenely small amount of people actually benefit from it - everybody else gets ****ed.

Global American state terrorism is necessary to ensure that markets are open to US exploitation, that debts are enforced, that the US can put protectionist tariffs on its few remaining products while others can't, and so on...the problem with being an imperialist power that doesn't make anything, is that no one has a reason to continue to cut them in on the productive global economy, except for state terror. Thats why the U.S. government doesn't mind some of the most brutally repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, hyper aggressive military states like Israel and Pakistan, and other non-democratic countries like Singapore, U.A.R., Qatar, Kuwait, etc - and only selectively targets the few countries that defy it.
suchgreatheight is offline  
#52 Old 04-15-2010, 10:42 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by suchgreatheight View Post

Global American state terrorism is necessary to ensure that markets are open to US exploitation, that debts are enforced, that the US can put protectionist tariffs on its few remaining products while others can't, and so on...the problem with being an imperialist power that doesn't make anything, is that no one has a reason to continue to cut them in on the productive global economy, except for state terror. Thats why the U.S. government doesn't mind some of the most brutally repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, hyper aggressive military states like Israel and Pakistan, and other non-democratic countries like Singapore, U.A.R., Qatar, Kuwait, etc - and only selectively targets the few countries that defy it.

You read too much.

America is the exporter of the number one commodity in the world, and that would be Envy.
BarryKay is offline  
#53 Old 04-17-2010, 11:49 AM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryKay View Post

You read too much.

America is the exporter of the number one commodity in the world, and that would be Envy.



People are envious of our military spending? What a laugh!

"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#54 Old 04-17-2010, 02:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Anyone who believes in spreading the wealth is envious of US military spending.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#55 Old 04-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Anyone who believes in spreading the wealth is envious of US military spending.



You mean, spreading the wealth amongst the military and the major corporations, because they're the only ones who benefit from it. The rest of us, stuck with the trickle-down leftovers, are being screwed. So, foreign CEOs and generals probably are jealous as hell of our military spending, but I don't think anyone else is; they see it for what it is: a rip-off. Not everyone is blinded by The Bombs Bursting In Air.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#56 Old 04-27-2010, 10:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kiran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 464
So true, it was perpetual war and out of control defense spending that sped the decline of the British Empire...we're next!
Kiran is offline  
#57 Old 04-27-2010, 10:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
So in another 100 years, we'll pick wars with Argentina?
das_nut is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off