Nazis, communists, Islamic terroeists or anyone who seeks to destroy freedom and democracy.

 

We've propped up enough dictators and fascists in our history to make me laugh at that simplistic answer.

As our economy has grown, the proportion of our GDP spent on military spending has generally shrunk.

 

 

Just as liberal speak in terms of aggregate dollars when demonizing oil companies for making returns on investments much lower than companies in most industries, they prefer stating military spending in terms of expenditures without regard to the growth of the economy or other types of spending.

 

Defense spending looks much more reasonable when one looks at the big picture.

 

If Obama is elected, his successor will be required to rebuild a demoralized and underfunded military, just as the successors of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had to do.

 

At least Obama is announcing his plans to gut the military in advance, just in case anybody is listening.

 

To be honest I think the military has been through some demoralizing years under Bush and the spending. Morale isn't just based on the money to spend but extending tours of duty and utilizing our entire National Guard as a form of Foreign militia has led to almost as much morale busting as budget cuts have.

So how are those communists doing today? ?

 

In fact what happened to the largest communist group, the USSR? They spent themselves into oblivion.

 

I'm not a defender of slashing military spending but to give the money out because its says Defense budget and there is no accountability on how it's spent, that's what I have a problem with. (I feel the same way about social spending as well.)

 

Surely your are not suggesting that the USSR or any country in history has practiced communism?

 

The idea behind true marxist communism - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - is fundamentally a very Christ-like philosopy.

 

the means of production being controlled by the government as in Russia, its satellites, Cuba and more centra/south american countries is not communism

As our economy has grown, the proportion of our GDP spent on military spending has generally shrunk.

 

 

Just as liberal speak in terms of aggregate dollars when demonizing oil companies for making returns on investments much lower than companies in most industries, they prefer stating military spending in terms of expenditures without regard to the growth of the economy or other types of spending.

 

Defense spending looks much more reasonable when one looks at the big picture.

 

If Obama is elected, his successor will be required to rebuild a demoralized and underfunded military, just as the successors of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had to do.

 

At least Obama is announcing his plans to gut the military in advance, just in case anybody is listening.

 

 

The ratio of military spending to GDP is utterly irrelevant unless you're willing to levy taxes to collect the funds to pay for it. You have made it abundantly clear that you view taxation as a less efficient use of wealth than keeping the money in the private sector. Yet you claim we need to spend at record levels to support far-flung military engagements. We tossed your boy Dubya the keys to the car and he totaled it to the tune of a half trillion dollar deficit. The biggest single chunk of that is the cost of maintaining a fighting force of 130,000 troops on the other side of the world. The war in Iraq will wind down soon, whether you want it to or not. The Iraqis no longer want us there and are resisting any kind of extension of the existing U.N. mandate. Once we pull out, and we pay to repair our broken military that was asked to do a job it was not designed to do, it makes no sense to keep military spending levels at World War II levels. You have provided nothing to show why it is necessary to spend at these levels in the post-Iraq war era. Entitlement spending due to the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers is poised to explode and we have to make reasonable choices.

The ratio of military spending to GDP is utterly irrelevant unless you're willing to levy taxes to collect the funds to pay for it. You have made it abundantly clear that you view taxation as a less efficient use of wealth than keeping the money in the private sector. Yet you claim we need to spend at record levels to support far-flung military engagements. We tossed your boy Dubya the keys to the car and he totaled it to the tune of a half trillion dollar deficit. The biggest single chunk of that is the cost of maintaining a fighting force of 130,000 troops on the other side of the world. The war in Iraq will wind down soon, whether you want it to or not. The Iraqis no longer want us there and are resisting any kind of extension of the existing U.N. mandate. Once we pull out, and we pay to repair our broken military that was asked to do a job it was not designed to do, it makes no sense to keep military spending levels at World War II levels. You have provided nothing to show why it is necessary to spend at these levels in the post-Iraq war era. Entitlement spending due to the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers is poised to explode and we have to make reasonable choices.

I think maintaining a large edge in weapons technology over potential adversaries should be a top priority.

 

I hope that I never decide that that I am entitled to half of somebody else's paycheck simply because I become part of a gray majority in this country. If people need to retire later in life to allow our children and grandchildren to live safe, secure lives in peace, then so be it. I do not plan to ever fully retire unless forced to do so.

 

Future generations deserve a chance to keep the fruits of their own labor and entitlement programs must be cut before weapons development. US war casualties have declined because of advanced weapons development and if we lose that edge to the Chinese, then we cannot hope to deter or win a war with them. China will simply take what it wants in Asia and then flex its muscles in this hemisphere and there will be nothing that we can do to stop it.

 

In the future, we will not have years available to play catch-up to stop the next Hitler. World War II level defense spending will simply not cut it in the 21st century.

^ Once again, an Iraq war proponent presents the false choice of "support the war and its escalating costs or doom your children to living in an unsafe world." It is quite clear to just about everyone except the rose-colored glasses crowd (and that includes many in the intelligence community) that this war has not made the U.S. safer, therefore your false choice is not even based on a valid premise.

 

We already have a large edge in weapons technology over potential adversaries. We have by far the most potent armed forces in the history of the world (although the war you advocate has gutted its readiness to respond to a legitimate threat). We are fighting two wars on opposite sides of the globe with well over 150,000 ground troops deployed. It is perfectly reasonable to think that military spending can be significantly reduced when the larger of these two conflicts concludes. Once this happens, we can return to military spending levels that are appropriate for maintaining a very large, very well equipped non-deployed force, with plenty of investment in future weapons platforms. You seem to advocate simply throwing money at the military because 'we have to keep up with the Chinese', but you offer no real logic for how much that should take. Sounds like a plum opportunity for wasteful spending.

 

And the last comment stating (if I understand it correctly) that we must spend at levels exceeding WWII is patently absurd.

^ Once again, an Iraq war proponent presents the false choice of "support the war and its escalating costs or doom your children to living in an unsafe world." It is quite clear to just about everyone except the rose-colored glasses crowd (and that includes many in the intelligence community) that this war has not made the U.S. safer, therefore your false choice is not even based on a valid premise.

:confused: I never mentioned the Iraq War in my post. Did you read the post before responding to it?

 

We already have a large edge in weapons technology over potential adversaries.

Yes we do. Considering the huge numerical advantage that the Chinese military enjoys we need to keep a large edge in weapons technology. The only way that we will surely lose that edge is to follow the proposals by Obama and other liberals to increase entitlement spending at the cost of weapons development.

 

If Obama and liberal Democrats really care about our troops they will stop trying to dismantle our military every time they gain control of the White House. It is ridiculous that liberals cannot learn from the mistakes of Carter and Clinton. American lives will be lost if Obama is allowed to execute his plan to gut spending on advanced weapons development.

 

The Chinese are modernizing their forces continuously without taking any four or eight year breaks. We cannot afford to play catch-up with military readiness every time that a liberal turns over the keys to the White House.

 

It is ridiculous to suggest that military spending should be slashed in terms of real dollars to a level below what was required when our population and economy were only a fraction of their current size.

I think many of us fear for our safety in regards to terrorism. How does weapons spending stop guys from boarding planes or from unleashing something in the subway system? Isn't that what we really fear today?

I think many of us fear for our safety in regards to terrorism. How does weapons spending stop guys from boarding planes or from unleashing something in the subway system? Isn't that what we really fear today?

I see your point. We do not really need the Marines, Army, Navy, or Air Force because they are useless in keeping a terrorist from boarding a plane and they do nothing to keep us safe from a suicide bomber. I wonder why the Israelis have not come to this realization. Brilliant!

I see your point. We do not really need the Marines, Army, Navy, or Air Force because they are useless in keeping a terrorist from boarding a plane and they do nothing to keep us safe from a suicide bomber. I wonder why the Israelis have not come to this realization. Brilliant!

 

Nice effort on your part.

 

No matter how many weapons we have in our arsenal, they won't stop a 9/11 repeat, correct?

 

Is it possible that the Cold War stockpiling of weapons mentality doesn't fit today's world?

Nice effort on your part.

 

No matter how many weapons we have in our arsenal, they won't stop a 9/11 repeat, correct?

 

Is it possible that the Cold War stockpiling of weapons mentality doesn't fit today's world?

Is that a lesson you'd really like to learn the hard way?

Is that a lesson you'd really like to learn the hard way?

 

Hard way? No. However with tight budgets I think its a fair question to ask. Do we need to redirect some of our military spending to a new type of defense spending?

Nice effort on your part.

 

No matter how many weapons we have in our arsenal, they won't stop a 9/11 repeat, correct?

 

Is it possible that the Cold War stockpiling of weapons mentality doesn't fit today's world?

Our friend Vladimir Putin is floating the idea of sending nukes into Cuba and you are advocating unilateral disarmament?

Our friend Vladimir Putin is floating the idea of sending nukes into Cuba and you are advocating unilateral disarmament?

 

As I've said previously, your thighs must be humongous for all of the large leaps you make.

 

How did you get from what I said to unilateral disarmament?

I see your point. We do not really need the Marines, Army, Navy, or Air Force because they are useless in keeping a terrorist from boarding a plane and they do nothing to keep us safe from a suicide bomber. I wonder why the Israelis have not come to this realization. Brilliant!

 

 

You have said we need to spend above World War II levels to combat the growing threat from the Chinese without building a case for specifically how much is needed and why. How do you know how much annual spending is the appropriate amount to stay comfortably ahead? $500 billion? $1 trillion? $5 trillion? I would expect the answer to that question to be based on a strategic, intelligence-based assessment of Chinese capabilities and a high confidence cost estimate of the weapons systems required to counter the threats. And I would expect justification for explosive growth in defense spending to be articulated through Congressional testimony from military and Pentagon civilian officials. I don't think this has happened, therefore I don't know how one can logically conclude that we need to be spending X to stay ahead of the Chinese.