Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

[Yankee Tripper]

What about protection and deterrence against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, various terror groups etc. - why is that never mentioned?

What has that got us? A soaring National Debt in the name of deterrence and a breeding ground for new terror organizations that hate us as we drop bombs on them from afar.

Since Pearl Harbor there has been one foreign based attack on US soil at it happened a little over 20 years ago.

[YankeePride1967]

No one is asking for the military to be disbanded. Just for it to be held to the same standards as president very other chain

[Texsahara]

a) How much do you trust China's and Russia's numbers?
b) How much of China's and Russia's cost savings result from exploitation of their citizens?

Would the answers to either of those questions somehow justify what the US spends? I'm going with a solid no.

[Maynerd]

Wow. We've really moved the goal posts.

We went from "Plenty of money to kill and maim women and children," and "to protect US global Corporate Interests," to "Would the answers to either of those questions somehow justify what the US spends?"

I have long advocated for a reduction to defense spending, with the caveat that we get American forces out of harm's way first. As long as we insist on deploying forces around the entire globe, we need to give them the resources they need.

But I take umbrage at "the mission of the military is to main women and children while protecting corporate interests." That's insulting, and demonstrates a complete lack of information on the part of people who espouse such dreck.

The military instrument of national power should only be used when all other instruments (diplomatic and economic) have failed. The fact that it should be the instrument of last resort doesn't mean it's insignificant or unimportant (I'm insignificant and unimportant....obligatory). The fact that the military instrument of national power involves violence does not mean its purpose is to kill and maim women and children. The fact that up-to-date weapons systems are very expensive does not mean the military's purpose is to support corporate interests.

[Yankee Tripper]

The fact that up-to-date weapons systems are very expensive does not mean the military's purpose is to support corporate interests.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...%2C%202021.pdf

[YankeePride1967]

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...%2C%202021.pdf

A must read

[HfxBob]

What has that got us? A soaring National Debt in the name of deterrence and a breeding ground for new terror organizations that hate us as we drop bombs on them from afar.

Since Pearl Harbor there has been one foreign based attack on US soil at it happened a little over 20 years ago.

So because there have been no attacks, protection and deterrence aren't necessary? Seems like a logic fail.

[HfxBob]

Would the answers to either of those questions somehow justify what the US spends? I'm going with a solid no.

Personally, I think it's pretty important that the US keeps pace with China and Russia.

[Texsahara]

Personally, I think it's pretty important that the US keeps pace with China and Russia.

Exceeding the combined total of the entire world is not "keeping pace".

[Texsahara]

Wow. We've really moved the goal posts.

We went from "Plenty of money to kill and maim women and children," and "to protect US global Corporate Interests," to "Would the answers to either of those questions somehow justify what the US spends?"

I have long advocated for a reduction to defense spending, with the caveat that we get American forces out of harm's way first. As long as we insist on deploying forces around the entire globe, we need to give them the resources they need.

But I take umbrage at "the mission of the military is to main women and children while protecting corporate interests." That's insulting, and demonstrates a complete lack of information on the part of people who espouse such dreck.

The military instrument of national power should only be used when all other instruments (diplomatic and economic) have failed. The fact that it should be the instrument of last resort doesn't mean it's insignificant or unimportant (I'm insignificant and unimportant....obligatory). The fact that the military instrument of national power involves violence does not mean its purpose is to kill and maim women and children. The fact that up-to-date weapons systems are very expensive does not mean the military's purpose is to support corporate interests.

Umbrage noted. Still hard disagree. Military spending is out of control and, while maybe not the actual missions, the military is responsible for waaay too many "accidental" civilian deaths to the point that I would say they don't prioritize preventing them. That there is so much money spent on corporate lobbying says plenty about who is making the big money and where the real interests are found.

Your belief that the budget cannot be reduced without moving troops first feels like a straw man. I've not seen any evidence of it being true.

[YankeePride1967]

No one is saying get rid of the military. My point is why is there never ANY call for financial responsibility and efficiency from conservatives as they do any other part of government and why we outspend them rest of the world combined. Something is wrong. Also if you really support the troops then we need to be more careful when we send them to war. The reasons we do have not warranted risking their lives for the most part in recent history if at all.

[HfxBob]

Exceeding the combined total of the entire world is not "keeping pace".

Which only leads back to the question of getting accurate, comparable cost numbers from China and Russia.

[Texsahara]

Which only leads back to the question of getting accurate, comparable cost numbers from China and Russia.

I don't think that's as big a concern as you do. We are very good at intel. And we are not talking about small disparities. It's not inaccurate to the point of their spending being anywhere remotely close to that of the US.

[YankeePride1967]

Also in case no one has noticed, wars are being fought online now, not with tanks and planes. Hacking, random ware and disinformation are the weapons which is why we need to invest in our intelligence areas and less with physical military

[HfxBob]

Also in case no one has noticed, wars are being fought online now, not with tanks and planes. Hacking, random ware and disinformation are the weapons which is why we need to invest in our intelligence areas and less with physical military

I would assume that's included in the budget.