Reply With Quote
an estimate has about 40M people displaced by Repugs' Global War on Terror
cut MIC spending by 50%, still many times more than the next few countries combined.
The MIC wealth-sucking vampire is just another reason why America is ed and un able.
I'm curious what people on this board think about it. Should it increase, decrease, stay about the same?
an estimate has about 40M people displaced by Repugs' Global War on Terror
cut MIC spending by 50%, still many times more than the next few countries combined.
The MIC wealth-sucking vampire is just another reason why America is ed and un able.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-30-2020 at 08:43 AM.
Trump hasn't started any wars.
Trunp ended the Korean War.
Trump is pulling troops out of the Middle East.
Trump
theres no need for 900 bases around the world when a flu is gonna kill millions of americans at home
Cut the budget by 1/2 would be a start
Even cutting it in half is being generous. It should be cut by 80%.
Cut the budget by 1/2 would be a start
You misspelled US Offense Spending in the le
US scrimmage vs 3rd world holes would be more fair
We get obliterated by even midlevel teams
The taliban are a 10th seed and we got our aswes handed
Imagine if we actually tried invading IranUS scrimmage vs 3rd world holes would be more fair
We get obliterated by even midlevel teams
The taliban are a 10th seed and we got our aswes handed
We tripped over our own invading Iraq, a mostly flat terrain country. Iran has a stronger military and much harsher terrain (mountains, hills, etc.), we'd get massacred in guerilla warfare.
our position in N America is great for defense, for offenseImagine if we actually tried invading Iran
We tripped over our own invading Iraq, a mostly flat terrain country. Iran has a stronger military and much harsher terrain (mountains, hills, etc.), we'd get massacred in guerilla warfare.
LOL our biggest military success ever was piggybacking on the Soviets' defeat of the facists in GermanyUS scrimmage vs 3rd world holes would be more fair
We get obliterated by even midlevel teams
The taliban are a 10th seed and we got our aswes handed
Which is why I've argued we really don't need a bloated defense budget. There are big ing oceans in between us and every European/Asian power that could actually pose a military threat. When WWII started we had less than 200k enlisted troops but got away with it because Japan/Germany had a lot to take care of first before even thinking about attacking the US.
Operations and maintenance costs are way too costly. From a GAO report from 2007:
“The Department of Defense (DOD) spent about 40 percent of the total defense budget to operate and maintain the nation's military forces in fiscal year 2005.”
The virus anihilation jusg showed what a paper tiger we are.
Hopefully noone will attack us anytime soon
What do you think?
Most here have no ing idea. They'll have an opinion though.
MIC spending is a make-work welfare jobs program,
with every Congress member REFUSING any and all cuts
that would reduce MIC spending and jobs in his state or district.
After USSR went bankrupt and collapsed, what happened to the "peace dividend", aka, reduction in war spending?
It's ing "welfare state socialism" while the rest of the country rots, problems unsolved, etc but the MIC and American Empire swallows $1T+ every year
I think American foreign business and American culture/influence is tied in with the military and even those countless bases.
::Petrodollar warfare
But I am likely more anti-War than almost all of you Ameribros
You're not that anti-war, you're supporting the candidate who wants to increase the already-bloated military budget.
I'm really torn about that. I think that could be right but I think we could also be exaggerating how important it really is. We want to be good allies but we need better burden sharing agreements to make all that possible from a security standpoint. But will there be any meaningful hit to US culture and influence if we dial back some of the spending oversees?? I think the hit would be a lot less than a lot of people think.
We'd be a multi-planetary species by now if we didn't waste so much money building bombs to drop on each other.
...we are building stuff that will never get dropped. We'll make some bombs and other countries will build defense systems for those. And then we'll build newer better models. And they'll build systems to defend against those.
And vice versa. And on and on.
I share your thoughts. On one hand USA needs to do "whatever" it takes to uphold the dollar but it is clear right now the boys should return home and focus on rebuilding the country.
I imagine those in power fear once you close the bases etc, that page or option/advantage is forever closed.
A middle ground would be end the wars but keep many bases operating. But this will eventually lead to attacks on American troops overseas and you are back to square one.
lmao keep pretending lefty
Should we exit NATO?
No, but Trump is right to put pressure on Germany to spend more on defense since Germany is the most important country in continental Europe. Obama put pressure on all allies but pushing for the 2% of GDP defense spending pledge but he did more professionally and behind the scenes.
The US is no longer the chief economic power on earth. The only thing keep us at "number 1" is the military. Plus, the military industrial complex employs large chunks of communities in many of these congressional districts.
On its face, a nation that spends as much as we do while many of its own citizens suffer from poverty, chronic illness, and a lack of healthcare coverage seems completely absurd. We should be spending WAY less on the military, but I wonder if we're past the point of no return...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
