1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Gates vs. Paranoid/Bloated-Defense "conservatives"!

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Mr. Shaman, Mar 19, 2009.

  1. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh......this is gonna be gooooooooooooood!!!!

    :D

     
  2. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shaman this will probably come as a surprise to you, but some people are able to change, learn and get past...the past. Others, obviously don't have that ability, so are unable to recognize it in others.
     
  3. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....And, lemme guess...they're Republicans, right?

    After all.....when a Dem does such a thing, they're considered flip-floppers.

    :rolleyes:
     
  4. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    We are currently spending (including the war costs) less than 5% of GDP on defense. Typically we will sit around 4% and it is easily maintainable. Do we need more things to better fight insurgents? Sure. Is it wise to let the rest of our force age (as we are allowing to happen in a big way) and focus solely on fighting insurgents? No.
     
  5. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe the bad guys can go after Shaman first. Then he will wish the government did not cut military spending.
     
  6. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I think the problem is the huge cost of useing million dollar bombs and missles to fight armies that live in cages and have often times very basic training. Had we , before afghanistan and Iraq spent more money and training, and development of new training ideas...and less on anti missile shields, ships the navy does not want/need, and many wasteful programs...we could have been much better off. Our current army is to dependant on technology and billion dollar weapons..that should a time come of protracted war against a major enemy ...we will spend outself to death before we can win the war. A good book on this was "the sling and the stone" by Col. Thomas Hammes. New training, new outlook on security, and I think much better suited to the wars of the next 20 years or so.
     
  7. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    the old idea of , you can always makes statistics work for your side is at work there. a 1% differance seems small...unless you take into account the size of teh GDP.

    also you can look at the fact we spend almost half the wolds total budget on defence. ( 48%) buy comparison...Europe 20%, China, 8%, Russia 5%....While of course our costs are higher as we do much...but begs the question are we doing to much and also there is clearly to much waste.
     
  8. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I do find it funny when republicans cry we need less spending, but will never let you touch the thing that is the largest part of spending...about 20% of its total.
     
  9. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I disagree with this assessment. If we did not have smart bombs etc, we would be fighting a much more costly war (in terms of human life) trying to root out those in the caves.

    There certainly are wasteful programs in defense spending, same as all spending, but there are many programs we are not funding that need to be funded. For example, our tanks are aging, our nuclear force is in atrophy. We don't really have any long range bomber to speak of (outside of the B-52, which is quite old) with very small exceptions. The F-22 can replace the very old F-15. Stealth technology is over twenty years old. We are falling behind in force modernization and need to spend on it.

    You can debate how heavy the Army should be all day long, but it needs to be prepared for every threat. Light and mobile will not win a heavy war. I think discounting the notion that we will find ourselves in state vs state conflict again in short-sighted.
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Well the Constitution does say "provide for the common defense." This line comes before it says "promote the general welfare."
     
  11. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    My point is that 4% of GDP is easily maintainable. In the Obama budget for the coming years the money going to the military is less than projected inflation rates. It should at least be held constant.

    Further, we are the world hegemon, of course we are going to spend more than Europe on defense. Europe relies on the United States to defend them for the most part, why on Earth would they pour money into defense programs they do not have to?
     
  12. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    and I see no reason we should have to play that role to the degree we do.
     
  13. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....Or, we could participate (more-fully) in European-style efforts; good, ol' fashioned police-work!!!!

     
  14. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, how could anyone possibly compete with our high-tech weaponry?!!

    Hell.....we have patents on everything!!!!

    :rolleyes:
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I think the benefits gained by being the dominant world power outweigh the costs.
     
Loading...

Share This Page