Wow…Liberal Garbage
-
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 08, 2010 01:41 PM)
First, I am not a fortune teller. Second you are again focusing on one point. Third we could not maintain overseas operations with a defense budget cut in half. Fourth if Iran or N Korea develop a long range ballistic missile then it is very possible. If not the US mainland, then US interests and bases abroad (won't even need icbms for that.)
-
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 08, 2010 04:32 PM)
Probably the same reason we have troops anywhere else in the world.
After the Cold War ended, the United States kept troops in Europe largely for two reasonsto maintain a tangible security commitment to Europe and NATO, and because it foresaw future conflicts in the Middle East and anticipated that it would be useful to have troops stationed in Europe that could respond quickly. American troops were kept in Asia to deter a North Korean invasion of South Korea and to promote stability in East Asia.
Again, deterrent, and defense for our allies. If conflict did emerge, it would take a long time to get troops from US soil to Europe. By the way the troops in Europe have been there since WWII and we actually decreased troops in Europe during President George W. Bush's presidency (about 70,000 or so.) -
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 08, 2010 04:49 PM)
Relations with Russia may have improved, but they aren't exactly great. There is still Iran, and if we went to war there we would probably stage out of Europe. A lot can happen in 12 hours (which btw the flight would be atleast 15 hours, and thats just flight time, we would be lucky to have troops there within 24 hours, with 36 being much more likely) including the loss of important strategic points and the death of thousands of innocent allied civilians and service members.
By the way, distance from US to Haiti, <700 Miles. Distance from US to Europe, 4850 mi.
Regardless, your insistent use of personal insults has proven to me your lack of knowledge on the subject. I will not respond to your next comment. -
PolyofOz — 15 years ago(July 19, 2010 05:32 PM)
Only by half as many!
Half of zero
But that's not the point. The point is that over a $trillion a year is spent on so-called defence [yeah, I don't use American spellings, mostly], and war industries. Why is this necessary? $ trillion a year every year is enough to fund most of the philanthropic needs of most of the world. $ trillion ought also to fund all of the US's truly necessary defence needs. It's surely more sensible to give away that amount to billions of people, rather than share it among a few mega-corporations and bloated plutocrats, surely? An Africa with schools and clinics and roads and fresh water is an Africa that won't have in its hand a begging bowl or an AK47, but a warm handshake and an interest in buying even American goods. And you're far less likely to have planes thrown at buildings.
Security involves a little less inequality, of wealth AND opportunity. Actually, a lot less The US is prepared to spend $trillion annually. Spend it once, but spend it well. Spending it rationally needs to be considered as a practical way of increasing world security. And in that safer world, military spending will be necessarily lower anyway.
High military budgets promote war and unrest and the likelihood of war.
** I stopped offering my 2 cents worth when they rounded it down to nothing. ** -
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 26, 2010 07:48 PM)
I can actually (partially) agree with what you said above. I agree that granting aid money to under-developed nations will reduce the amount of infighting and civil wars in those areas of the world, and will provide much needed humanitarian support for their citizens.
However, the money (in the amount you mention above) would not be just a one time payment but addition to annual spending. It would build a great foundation and move those areas of the world in to the right direction, but as with all infrastucture needs, maintenance is required (and expensive.) This would likely be in addition to and not in replacement of defense (sorry I spell it the American way :))spending. Plus there would still always be accusations that the funding is given to "greedy multinational American corparations" for the sake of turning a profit (someone has to build the roads, provide healthcare, etc.) and the US would be accused of spending the money purely for political and financial gains (which, lets be honest, would likely be the reason for the spending.)
Furthermore, as I stated previously half of the defense budget is spent on on-going operations abroad, including war and rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to fund US bases abroad. I already justified, or at least rationalized, the reasons for the many US bases so I won't touch on that again, but a lot of the remaining balance is spent to modernize the Armed Forces, overhaul aging ships, etc. etc.
All in all as I stated previously I would not object process refinement, procurement improvements, and other gained efficiencies to help reduce the overall defense budget. After the budget deficit is closed I would also greatly support additional spending to stabilize regions of the world that are underdeveloped and under the constant threat of prolonged conflicts. I think we could all agree that we would love to see a day when wars were not fought and defense spending was entirely unnecessary, but we are not there today and I do not think it is a realistic expectation that it will be seen in the future. For as long as there have been humans on this planet, there has been war and conflict. -
met76 — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 12:47 PM)
Wars do not happen in Western Europe because the neighbors share linked economies and war would likely cripple the entire continent.
Umwars do not happen in Western Europe because its nations have their conflicts settled and are mostly in really good relationships and their today's disagreements are far not grave enough to cause war. That, and they share linked economies. -
richard-goodenough — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 01:54 PM)
This was a very old discussion, but I got the notification so I will respond regardless.
In regards to Western Europe, they have settled their conflicts multiple times throughout history but that certainly did not mean they had seen the end of war, nor have they seen it now. Once there is a significant enough shift in balance of power, with reduced influence from a global or regional superpower and the correct political landscape; war will return to the region. It will not likely happen within the next few decades, but it will happen again unless the human race dies out before then.
For reference one only needs to look at the global political landscape from the late 1800s to 1940 and the circumstances that led up to the both World Wars. -
met76 — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 04:49 PM)
For reference one only needs to look at the global political landscape from the late 1800s to 1940 and the circumstances that led up to the both World Wars.
Taking past events as an indication to what will or will not happen in the future may not be successful all the time. Perhaps humanity can evolve to something better than it was in the pastin some areas of the world it already has. -
richard-goodenough — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 05:06 PM)
True enough, however the past indicates that periods of peace and temporary settlement of conflicts does not preclude hostile acts or war in the future. In fact, history has shown that with a high degree of probability that is outright false. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."