Author Topic: Military Spending  (Read 7763 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2010, 04:56:31 PM »
And I might have been referring to the fact that America has a very long history of spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, especially since the end of the Cold War. Also adding in the war spending, since Obama so obviously chose to start two wars before he even became a senator. Two things that are just as tone deaf as Steele's comments about Afghanistan being a war of Obama's choosing.

If anything you should be ecstatic that Obama is in office an not McCain, since we'd probably already be at war with Iran by now if he had won the election.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52948
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2010, 05:59:56 PM »
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan. 

But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK. 

In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran.   There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.


Online 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2010, 07:59:59 PM »
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan. 

But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK. 

In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran.   There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.



To "win" the war in Afghanistan, nation building needs to occur. Bombing a stone-age country into a pebble-age country and installing a puppet government just means that you can prevent terrorist from branching out to attack outside the country for as long as you're there. We leave today, the Taliban would have control over Afghanistan within weeks and begin plotting all over again.

Instead, we need to be providing real infrastructure, which includes a real education system. There's a reason successful occupations generally last 10-14 years, or about the amount of time it takes to educate a generation and give them options to improve their lives.


I don't think there's any argument that Obama is widening the war in Af-Pak. The place needs a little cleaning up after the previous administration got bored and decided to do the nation building in Iraq.

If McCain's recent statements and writings are to be believed, we'd already be at war with Iran. Of course, he's long since lost any integrity he may have once had so that's a tossup.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2010, 08:17:09 PM »
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.

There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.

Where would America be today without it's military spending?

The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?

And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?

And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?







1.  The us did not establish Israel
2.  The Israelis are hardly puppets

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52948
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2010, 09:44:11 PM »
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan. 

But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK. 

In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran.   There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.



To "win" the war in Afghanistan, nation building needs to occur. Bombing a stone-age country into a pebble-age country and installing a puppet government just means that you can prevent terrorist from branching out to attack outside the country for as long as you're there. We leave today, the Taliban would have control over Afghanistan within weeks and begin plotting all over again.

Instead, we need to be providing real infrastructure, which includes a real education system. There's a reason successful occupations generally last 10-14 years, or about the amount of time it takes to educate a generation and give them options to improve their lives.


I don't think there's any argument that Obama is widening the war in Af-Pak. The place needs a little cleaning up after the previous administration got bored and decided to do the nation building in Iraq.

If McCain's recent statements and writings are to be believed, we'd already be at war with Iran. Of course, he's long since lost any integrity he may have once had so that's a tossup.

You don't need to build an entire nation in Afghanistan.   The Bush administration approach was far more feasible, and Afghanistan was relatively calm compared to what it is today.   Again, ask yourself, why can't a Trillion dollar plus war, and intelligence machine keep a bunch of cave dwellers bottled up in the hills??  Simple answer, they can . . . but War Inc. doesn't want to keep them "just" bottled up . . . War Inc.  wants a troop surge, and drone strikes, and 1000's more contractors.   Plus, there's a trillion dollars in natural resources to conquer and pipelines to build and U.S. intelligence wants control of the drugs. 

Just reconcile yourself to the reality that the current regime in Washington makes PNAC look like a bunch of flower children.    If all goes as planned we'll Balkanize AF-Pak and expand our sphere of influence and thwart Chinese influence. 

But hey, if you want to live the puppy dog fantasy of nation building, super highways, power plants and democracy as the ultimate endgame, where a benevolent United States packs up and goes home when the "last" terra-ist is dead . . . don't let me stop you.









Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2010, 11:32:01 PM »
Dax killing it in this thread. It's easy, War Inc doesn't want to end the war because they can make billions more profit off of it. Think about Vietnam, same fing thing

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2010, 04:55:18 AM »
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.

There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.

Where would America be today without it's military spending?

The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?

And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?

And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?







1.  The us did not establish Israel
2.  The Israelis are hardly puppets


Not literally but it's a good description I think of how the US views the advantages of it's support of Israel.

I'd suggest reading most work by Noam Chomsky but especially one of his earlies the classic "fateful triangle" about the US-Israeli-Palestine relationship and the US unconditional support to help farther it's basic goal of control in the middle east.

Offline felix rex

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8967
  • Knows what Brent did
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2010, 08:37:47 AM »
Israel is actually our biggest counterintelligence threat. So incredibly far from a puppet and definitely not viewed that way by anybody that has to deal with them (in politics or defense). If the US and Israel appear in lockstep at times, it's just because we happen to be going the same way. Not because we're leading them anywhere.
"How will I recruit to Manhattan? Well, distance. And the proud state of basketball. It start there, and then daily flights to Dallas, because I'm really good at going out. Like top five good. Ask my wife. She wants me to be happy."

Online 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #58 on: August 03, 2010, 09:44:47 AM »
Israel is actually our biggest counterintelligence threat. So incredibly far from a puppet and definitely not viewed that way by anybody that has to deal with them (in politics or defense). If the US and Israel appear in lockstep at times, it's just because we happen to be going the same way. Not because we're leading them anywhere.

Damn, thought I was going to be able to bust your balls with China but I read counterintelligence. Carry on.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #59 on: August 03, 2010, 09:46:08 AM »
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.

There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.

Where would America be today without it's military spending?

The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?

And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?

And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?







1.  The us did not establish Israel
2.  The Israelis are hardly puppets


Not literally but it's a good description I think of how the US views the advantages of it's support of Israel.

I'd suggest reading most work by Noam Chomsky but especially one of his earlies the classic "fateful triangle" about the US-Israeli-Palestine relationship and the US unconditional support to help farther it's basic goal of control in the middle east.

I'm pretty familiar with Chomsky.  I think felix reads better right now.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #60 on: August 04, 2010, 09:42:01 PM »
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.

There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.

Where would America be today without it's military spending?

The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?

And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?

And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?







1.  The us did not establish Israel
2.  The Israelis are hardly puppets


Not literally but it's a good description I think of how the US views the advantages of it's support of Israel.

I'd suggest reading most work by Noam Chomsky but especially one of his earlies the classic "fateful triangle" about the US-Israeli-Palestine relationship and the US unconditional support to help farther it's basic goal of control in the middle east.

I'm pretty familiar with Chomsky.  I think felix reads better right now.

Noam is always entertaining but certainly not always right. He can get carried away but at least he gets people thinking and talking about the stuff that matters.

'Course, for every one Noam Chomsky, there are a thousand fellow american's talking about "winning this war" and waiting for democracy to kick in or whatever.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #61 on: August 05, 2010, 02:23:43 PM »
Israel is actually our biggest counterintelligence threat. So incredibly far from a puppet and definitely not viewed that way by anybody that has to deal with them (in politics or defense). If the US and Israel appear in lockstep at times, it's just because we happen to be going the same way. Not because we're leading them anywhere.

It's true that Israeli-US relations have, no too surprisingly, gotten worse under the Obama administration. But Israel and the US have walked step for step with eachother for the last 60+ years and will continue to do so. Relations may not be what they were a couple decades ago, (maybe Israel is starting to figure out they are just viewed as a pawn in the middle east chess game by the US), but it's not important or necessary that we contol their every move, just that we have them there when we need them.

Puppet-government was the wrong choice of words. But they're fighting the same guys we are, and we know what side they'll be on when the crap hits the fan, so that's good enough.

Israel relied heavily on US backing to establish their own country, and continues to rely heavily on US support, trade, and military backing. In return for this the US gets an essential ally right where they need one.

Putting up with a little of their BS is well-worth the advantages that they provide us.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 02:25:26 PM by Benja »

Online 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #62 on: August 05, 2010, 02:32:51 PM »
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan. 

But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK. 

In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran.   There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.



To "win" the war in Afghanistan, nation building needs to occur. Bombing a stone-age country into a pebble-age country and installing a puppet government just means that you can prevent terrorist from branching out to attack outside the country for as long as you're there. We leave today, the Taliban would have control over Afghanistan within weeks and begin plotting all over again.

Instead, we need to be providing real infrastructure, which includes a real education system. There's a reason successful occupations generally last 10-14 years, or about the amount of time it takes to educate a generation and give them options to improve their lives.


I don't think there's any argument that Obama is widening the war in Af-Pak. The place needs a little cleaning up after the previous administration got bored and decided to do the nation building in Iraq.

If McCain's recent statements and writings are to be believed, we'd already be at war with Iran. Of course, he's long since lost any integrity he may have once had so that's a tossup.

You don't need to build an entire nation in Afghanistan.   The Bush administration approach was far more feasible, and Afghanistan was relatively calm compared to what it is today.   Again, ask yourself, why can't a Trillion dollar plus war, and intelligence machine keep a bunch of cave dwellers bottled up in the hills??  Simple answer, they can . . . but War Inc. doesn't want to keep them "just" bottled up . . . War Inc.  wants a troop surge, and drone strikes, and 1000's more contractors.   Plus, there's a trillion dollars in natural resources to conquer and pipelines to build and U.S. intelligence wants control of the drugs. 

Just reconcile yourself to the reality that the current regime in Washington makes PNAC look like a bunch of flower children.    If all goes as planned we'll Balkanize AF-Pak and expand our sphere of influence and thwart Chinese influence. 

But hey, if you want to live the puppy dog fantasy of nation building, super highways, power plants and democracy as the ultimate endgame, where a benevolent United States packs up and goes home when the "last" terra-ist is dead . . . don't let me stop you.


Yes, the Bush administration policy of leaving for Iraq was so feasible that both the Taliban and al-queda surged in Afghanistan along with drug cartels. Obviously it was well managed.

Yes the current administration is so dead set on perpetual war that at the end of the month we'll have the lowest troop level in Iraq since the invasion and be a little less than 18 months away from pulling the bulk of our troops out of Afghanistan.

And that's a super straw man of what nation building is. Congrats Dax, you successfully trolled me.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #63 on: August 05, 2010, 02:47:38 PM »
By the way, I'm not sure who's arguing for what in this thread, but if you want to "win" this war, get the troops out, and have any shot at all at establishing some sort of stable government, you do what Obama has done and send more resources and troops.

I(f you want this perpetual war/occupation that everyone is talking about, you do what Bush did and send just enough to hold our footing their until we figure out a better plan for this middle east mess, or the crap hits the fan.

Which one is more realistic? Which one is more advantageous for the US?


Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #64 on: August 05, 2010, 02:52:41 PM »
By the way, I'm not sure who's arguing for what in this thread, but if you want to "win" this war, get the troops out, and have any shot at all at establishing some sort of stable government, you do what Obama has done and send more resources and troops.

I(f you want this perpetual war/occupation that everyone is talking about, you do what Bush did and send just enough to hold our footing their until we figure out a better plan for this middle east mess, or the crap hits the fan.

Which one is more realistic? Which one is more advantageous for the US?



Or you could go home for supper?

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #65 on: August 05, 2010, 03:45:16 PM »
By the way, I'm not sure who's arguing for what in this thread, but if you want to "win" this war, get the troops out, and have any shot at all at establishing some sort of stable government, you do what Obama has done and send more resources and troops.

I(f you want this perpetual war/occupation that everyone is talking about, you do what Bush did and send just enough to hold our footing their until we figure out a better plan for this middle east mess, or the crap hits the fan.

Which one is more realistic? Which one is more advantageous for the US?



Or you could go home for supper?

Email Obama