Why Not Disband The US Military?

[BigRob]

If you cannot specify exactly what constitutes "our interests", then give me your best example of something that you currently consider to be "in our interests" which justifies, or necessitates, that we have global military superiority.

Global supremacy of the oceans.

I still do not see the connection. Of course other nations are going to oppose us on certain things, that doesn't mean we need to be prepared to launch a military invasion against that country at the drop of a hat.

No it doesn't. But it does mean that we need to be prepared to respond to crisis scenarios.

So let's stop trying to carry all the weight ourselves and instead ask our allies to share the burden by protecting common interests in their regions.

I won't disagree with this, but we need to ensure that they don't accomplish this simply by running to Russia etc.

From their point of view, we the ones limiting their area of operations.

Hah, probably...but so what?

And you think the best solution is to continue striving for global military dominance?


Do you really believe our military superiority is a deterrent? I don't. Our enemies will either look for other ways to attack/weaken us and/or they will pursue a military build up of their own that can rival ours... You know, like China and Russia have been doing.

In my opinion, military superiority is a deterrent to an extent. I don't put a lot of faith in deterrence.

No more so than you're asserting that our military dominance prevents wars... If I wasn't clear before, there simply is no way to prevent war, the best we can hope to do is pursue policies which lessen the likelihood of war. I do not see our continued pursuance of a policy that results in an arms race as lessening the likelihood of war.

The Cold War could be seen as a pretty good example of a pretty big arms race preventing an all out war. That said, I don't buy into the idea at all that war will be ended by interconnecting economies...if it was, how is civil war explained?

For the centuries that European nations fought each other, they were following your doctrine: Military dominance. As a result, the nations of Europe went to war on a regular basis. They've since abandoned that doctrine and stopped vying for military dominance... Do you think it's a coincidence they no longer go to war with each other? Do you give the interdependency of their economies any credit for the decades of peace in that region?

They no longer war with each other because they have accepted they will have no military dominance....the US takes that role for them. If we were removed from the equation, I think it might start to change.

I said they were the most likely threats, I never claimed they were the only threats. The threat of us being attacked by conventional military forces ranks as one of the lowest of all the possible threats we face and should be treated as such.

We waged war against a conventional army as recently as 2003.

I see it as having the opposite effect. Our military dominance poses a threat to them, so it's in their best interest to counter that threat any way they can.

Sure they might want to oppose it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still give us leverage.

Devastating to who?

It seems to me that countries like Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia would have a vested interest in making sure the SoH isn't blockaded by Iran. I'm sure that if they knew the 5th fleet wasn't going to be there to prevent such an occurrence, they would figure out some way to protect their own interests and prevent Iran from shutting down the SoH - using their own money and their own soldiers.

The point is that maybe they don't have the technological capability...maybe Iran would view them as less of a threat, maybe they would actually fight a war about it as opposed to just talking and then realizing the 5th fleet is a major force to be reckoned with.

I'm glad to hear you say that... Since we would be disbanding our military on our own terms, I don't want to hear it said that such a move will make us look weak.

It maybe wouldn't make us "look" weak, it would just make us weak.

As I said, it's high time our allies pulled their own weight. That doesn't mean we have to abandon them, just let them know the free ride is coming to an end and they need to be prepared to defend themselves. If they are attacked, we can offer assistance but we're no longer going to fight their battles for them.

We already have done that to an extent.

 

[GenSeneca]

Global supremacy of the oceans.

10 Largest Navies in the World

No 1. USA

With 332 thousand personnel in active duty and a further 124 thousand in reserve, the United States Navy is the largest in the world. The battle fleet tonnage of the USN is greater than the next 13 largest navies combined.​

Superfluous: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.

No it doesn't. But it does mean that we need to be prepared to respond to crisis scenarios.

A "Crisis Scenario" seems to be most often defined as; the US offering aid and support to foreign nations and to the benefit of citizens who are not Americans.

Hah, probably...but so what?

It's part of a feedback loop that must be broken.

In my opinion, military superiority is a deterrent to an extent. I don't put a lot of faith in deterrence. The Cold War could be seen as a pretty good example of a pretty big arms race preventing an all out war.

I'd like to point out that this time around, we get to play the role of Soviet Russia and collapse under the weight of our unsustainable spending and debt. I'm sure China would love for that to happen, considering how much of our debt they hold, they could walk in and take over our country without having to fire a shot.

That said, I don't buy into the idea at all that war will be ended by interconnecting economies...

Never claimed it would end, or prevent, wars.

They no longer war with each other because they have accepted they will have no military dominance....the US takes that role for them. If we were removed from the equation, I think it might start to change.

I disagree. If the US taxpayer umbrella of protection were removed from the European continent, I believe they would become closer and stronger than ever.

We waged war against a conventional army as recently as 2003.

True. Over 90% of that "allied" force consisted of US men and material. I'm simply suggesting that the "allied" force of the future not be so terribly lopsided, let our allies actually pull their own damn weight for a change.

Sure they might want to oppose it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still give us leverage.

A great number of things "give us leverage" in any dispute and I think you're placing too much emphasis on whatever leverage is attained through our military superiority. As you said, our military exists to "kill people" and the threat of, "Or else we'll kill you!", isn't a bargaining chip that gets tossed on the table very often.

The point is that maybe they don't have the technological capability...

Under my proposal... We'd have tons of high tech equipment for sale that our allies could purchase and be trained to use.

maybe Iran would view them as less of a threat, maybe they would actually fight a war about it as opposed to just talking and then realizing the 5th fleet is a major force to be reckoned with.

And maybe Iran realizes that it can't field a conventional military force that would rival the US, so instead they're going to build and use nukes in hopes of quickening the return of the 12th imam.

It maybe wouldn't make us "look" weak, it would just make us weak.

Globally, yes... we would lose our ability to invade countries on the other side of the world at the drop of a hat. Domestically, no... We'd be fully capable of dealing with any conventional military threat that came anywhere near American soil.

We already have done that to an extent.

The time is fast approaching when we will have to choose between our welfare state and our global military dominance. It's that or suffer a Soviet style collapse. Either way, all those nations who rely on us for their defense need to start preparing themselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

I totally disagree that Europeans have been able to build a strong safety net because they have been dependent on the US for "protection!" That is ridiculous.

How much bigger would our welfare state be if we didn't have to spend 25% of our budget on defense?

 

[Openmind]

Are nuclear weapons in your opinion a deterrent against possession of nuclear weapons or use of nuclear weapons? You know many of the biggest proponents of nuclear weapons envisioned a world where everyone had nuclear weapons as a driver for peace.

Personally, I don't believe it is a deterrent in either case! Obviously, it didn't work against "possession" of nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union, Iran, and probably some others we don't even know about!
Whether it work as a deterrent againt utiliszation of nuclear weapons remains to be seen. It depends how desperate or how crazy countries who have those weapons are. . .or how securely those weapons are protected from terrorists! It's just a lot of money in the pocket of some people!

Interesting chart here on European Debt.

Judging by the continued system problems within Europe at the moment, I wouldn't put to much money on their ability to maintain current levels of spending.

The point is that, contrary to our system, Europe has enough strength in their safety net to cut some of it without pushing the middle class into dire poverty. Just two exemples taken from Belgium (which is pretty standard among the most developed countries in Europe): They are currently giving about $100.00 per month for "Child benefit" for every child in every family. They could cut that temporarely, or cut it by half, or cut it for the higher income earner, or only give it to the first two children in every family. . .the point is that they have room to cut! We don't.


Their system of universal health care is free for low income people, and has a contribution for higher income (I believe based on three income brackets). A couple over the age of 60 in a middle class bracket will be expected to contribute about $425 every three months. . .whether they are 2, or 5 in the family (this is about the going rate, whether people choose to suscribe to a government insurance or to a private insurance). Although people wouldn't like it, this contribution could easily be rased by 25 or even 50 % and still be infinitely cheaper than anything we have available here.

 

[BigRob]

10 Largest Navies in the World

No 1. USA

With 332 thousand personnel in active duty and a further 124 thousand in reserve, the United States Navy is the largest in the world. The battle fleet tonnage of the USN is greater than the next 13 largest navies combined.​

Superfluous: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.

I am not sure where you are going with this....none of those navies make it their goal to ensure safe shipping lanes etc like the US Navy. We therefore have different missions, and comparisons of this type are meaningless.

A one size fits all approach does not work. It is like looking at two people, one who is average size, and one who is 6'10 320 lbs, and giving them both a shirt that is a size L and telling them that ought to be enough. They have different needs.

A "Crisis Scenario" seems to be most often defined as; the US offering aid and support to foreign nations and to the benefit of citizens who are not Americans.

We spend hardly anything on foreign aid. And I think there are some positives we get from helping people like we do.

It's part of a feedback loop that must be broken.

Why?

I'd like to point out that this time around, we get to play the role of Soviet Russia and collapse under the weight of our unsustainable spending and debt. I'm sure China would love for that to happen, considering how much of our debt they hold, they could walk in and take over our country without having to fire a shot.

If we "collapse" I would imagine we simply default on all our debt...aka China gets nothing.

Never claimed it would end, or prevent, wars.

You did argue it was the better alternative....what makes it better if it does none of these things?

I disagree. If the US taxpayer umbrella of protection were removed from the European continent, I believe they would become closer and stronger than ever.

Why?

True. Over 90% of that "allied" force consisted of US men and material. I'm simply suggesting that the "allied" force of the future not be so terribly lopsided, let our allies actually pull their own damn weight for a change.

Is it better to get a token allied force, or have to truly go it alone?

A great number of things "give us leverage" in any dispute and I think you're placing too much emphasis on whatever leverage is attained through our military superiority. As you said, our military exists to "kill people" and the threat of, "Or else we'll kill you!", isn't a bargaining chip that gets tossed on the table very often.

It doesn't get tossed on the table, but it is always in the room...and that is important I think.

Under my proposal... We'd have tons of high tech equipment for sale that our allies could purchase and be trained to use.

I suppose we would indeed.

And maybe Iran realizes that it can't field a conventional military force that would rival the US, so instead they're going to build and use nukes in hopes of quickening the return of the 12th imam.

Or, maybe Iran sees a weakening US, and wants to pursue nuclear weapons to make a run at regional hegemony.

Globally, yes... we would lose our ability to invade countries on the other side of the world at the drop of a hat. Domestically, no... We'd be fully capable of dealing with any conventional military threat that came anywhere near American soil.

I think that would be a major step back for America.

The time is fast approaching when we will have to choose between our welfare state and our global military dominance. It's that or suffer a Soviet style collapse. Either way, all those nations who rely on us for their defense need to start preparing themselves.

Well, you know which I will pick hahah...I am all for making some cuts in the military, but disbanding it would be unwise.

 

[Openmind]

I am not sure where you are going with this....none of those navies make it their goal to ensure safe shipping lanes etc like the US Navy. We therefore have different missions, and comparisons of this type are meaningless.

A one size fits all approach does not work. It is like looking at two people, one who is average size, and one who is 6'10 320 lbs, and giving them both a shirt that is a size L and telling them that ought to be enough. They have different needs.



We spend hardly anything on foreign aid. And I think there are some positives we get from helping people like we do.



Why?



If we "collapse" I would imagine we simply default on all our debt...aka China gets nothing.



You did argue it was the better alternative....what makes it better if it does none of these things?



Why?



Is it better to get a token allied force, or have to truly go it alone?



It doesn't get tossed on the table, but it is always in the room...and that is important I think.



I suppose we would indeed.



Or, maybe Iran sees a weakening US, and wants to pursue nuclear weapons to make a run at regional hegemony.



I think that would be a major step back for America.



Well, you know which I will pick hahah...I am all for making some cuts in the military, but disbanding it would be unwise.

Do you realize that the cost of our military might has TRIPLED since 1997?
And you really think we are safer today, with three times the spending, than we were in 1996?

Guess what. . .we are LESS safe! Because our ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP is being assaulted from all parts; Because we are more hated among the world today than we were in 1996. Because we are living in constant fear, and no money, and no amount of guns can make us feel safer.

So, making minute cuts is NOT enough. We need to cut back to at least the 1997 level.

Once again. . .you are pro-life, I am pro-choice.
But isn't it strange that you would rather spend trillions of dollars for a huge KILLING machine, while I would rather spend billions of dollars for a HEALING machine, and a EDUCATIONAL machine!

 

[BigRob]

Do you realize that the cost of our military might has TRIPLED since 1997?

Let's back up a little further, and not make it such a partisan attack from our friend Senator Sanders....

Do you realize we saw dramatic military budget cuts really starting in 1992 and onwards?

His comparison only makes sense as well if you use the 1997 baseline request, and assume there were no additional expenditures (which is false) and then instead of using the FY2012 request, you include everything, which by the way includes Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Nuclear Administration and some State Department programs.

And you really think we are safer today, with three times the spending, than we were in 1996?

I don't particularly think this country is ever "safe."

Guess what. . .we are LESS safe! Because our ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP is being assaulted from all parts; Because we are more hated among the world today than we were in 1996. Because we are living in constant fear, and no money, and no amount of guns can make us feel safer.

We are not living in constant fear...and the world is just a dangerous now as it was in 1997.

So, making minute cuts is NOT enough. We need to cut back to at least the 1997 level.

The base level projections or the actual spending levels?

Once again. . .you are pro-life, I am pro-choice.
But isn't it strange that you would rather spend trillions of dollars for a huge KILLING machine, while I would rather spend billions of dollars for a HEALING machine, and a EDUCATIONAL machine!

As I have said before, our military has saved millions of lives....how many lives did graduating high school save?

 

[Gipper]

How much bigger would our welfare state be if we didn't have to spend 25% of our budget on defense?

At least 25% bigger and it is likely more like 35-50% bigger.

So, in conclusion USA welfare spending would be much like Europe if we did not fund the military. (this might be another reason for NOT disbanding the military)

But, do not expect libs to understand. Belief in an ever expanding the welfare state is a religious like belief for them...and they could care less about the consequences.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm going to focus on just a couple of points, if you'd like for me to cover other points that have been made, please remind me which ones.

I am not sure where you are going with this....none of those navies make it their goal to ensure safe shipping lanes etc like the US Navy. We therefore have different missions, and comparisons of this type are meaningless.

How much does the rest of the world pay us for securing the global shipping lanes?

I'd like your feedback on the following scenario: The US protects shipping lanes in the north eastern pacific and north atlantic. China protects the shipping lanes from the western pacific to the indian ocean. India protects the indian ocean. Russia protects the shipping lanes in the arctic ocean. Europe protects the mediterranean, baltic, and north seas as well as a small portion of the north atlantic off the European coast. The south American countries protect shipping lanes in the south atlantic and south east pacific. Every shipping lane in the world would be protected by the countries of that region, why would this be so horrible?

The second point I'd like to explore requires that we put the US off to the side for a moment and focus on the other two major players in the world, China and Russia. What kind of relationship do they have? How does US military dominance affect their relationship?

 

[Openmind]

At least 25% bigger and it is likely more like 35-50% bigger.

So, in conclusion USA welfare spending would be much like Europe if we did not fund the military. (this might be another reason for NOT disbanding the military)

But, do not expect libs to understand. Belief in an ever expanding the welfare state is a religious like belief for them...and they could care less about the consequences.

So, you're another person who prefers to spend tax money on a killing machine rather than on a healing and/or educational machine?

But. . .you call yourself "pro-life!"

Sorry, that's either hypocrisy or idiocy!

 

[Openmind]

Let's back up a little further, and not make it such a partisan attack from our friend Senator Sanders....

Do you realize we saw dramatic military budget cuts really starting in 1992 and onwards?

His comparison only makes sense as well if you use the 1997 baseline request, and assume there were no additional expenditures (which is false) and then instead of using the FY2012 request, you include everything, which by the way includes Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Nuclear Administration and some State Department programs.



I don't particularly think this country is ever "safe."



We are not living in constant fear...and the world is just a dangerous now as it was in 1997.



The base level projections or the actual spending levels?



As I have said before, our military has saved millions of lives....how many lives did graduating high school save?

You must be kidding! You think our military has saved millions of lives??? Where?

And graduating high school, and getting a college education is useless???

You know, I think you are currently so far off the deep end, that I better leave it at that.

The reason military spending went down in the 90's is because Clinton was not a warmonger. . .he didn't need to demonstrate "US superiority" by the size of its military, he improved the economic climate, which was a lot more convincing (and less deadly!).

Then came Bush with his "puppet master" Cheney. . .who obviously had strong ties to Haliburton. . .

They NEEDED a war. . .even without 9/11, they would have attacked Iraq! And since then, it's history! Only in the last 2 years, with Obama, have we seen a SLIGHT decrease in military spending.

Whether we are or not living in constant fear is a question of opinion! It is true that, since Obama took away the "danger level" that was used for political reasons under Bush, it is getting better! And yet, we still believe that we have to spend 5 to 6 X more than the rest of the world to "be safe."

Anyway. We obviously will never agree on much in this subject. You are absolutey buying into everything that is the "10 commandements of the GOP!" and there is no facts, and no arguments that will even trigger enough curiosity or a sense of disconnect to tempt you to look at any other view.

That's too bad.

 

[Lagboltz]

I don't particularly think this country is ever "safe."

We are not living in constant fear...and the world is just a dangerous now as it was in 1997.

Those two statements seem to contradict each other, unless you don't fear not being safe, which is also very odd.

As I have said before, our military has saved millions of lives....how many lives did graduating high school save?

Not since 70 years ago in WWII have we helped stop genocide. Let's think about the current world. Then your statement no longer applies, and education really is a more predominant current problem than the hypothetical one of saving millions of lives.

 

[BigRob]

I'm going to focus on just a couple of points, if you'd like for me to cover other points that have been made, please remind me which ones.

How much does the rest of the world pay us for securing the global shipping lanes?

Well nothing...we do it for our own benefit though.

I'd like your feedback on the following scenario: The US protects shipping lanes in the north eastern pacific and north atlantic. China protects the shipping lanes from the western pacific to the indian ocean. India protects the indian ocean. Russia protects the shipping lanes in the arctic ocean. Europe protects the mediterranean, baltic, and north seas as well as a small portion of the north atlantic off the European coast. The south American countries protect shipping lanes in the south atlantic and south east pacific. Every shipping lane in the world would be protected by the countries of that region, why would this be so horrible?

Because the smallest crisis could cripple global trade.

The second point I'd like to explore requires that we put the US off to the side for a moment and focus on the other two major players in the world, China and Russia. What kind of relationship do they have? How does US military dominance affect their relationship?

China and Russia have a somewhat complex relationship...they are friendly in regards to certain things and cool in regards to other things.

Military dominance effects their relationship in varying ways depending on varying scenarios....but military dominance alone I don't think has much of an impact on their relations...aside from at times causing them to work against us...but then again, at times, they work against each other despite out military dominance.

 

[BigRob]

Those two statements seem to contradict each other, unless you don't fear not being safe, which is also very odd.

The world is a dangerous place..you will never be truly "safe"...you cannot really fear that in my opinion.

Not since 70 years ago in WWII have we helped stop genocide. Let's think about the current world. Then your statement no longer applies, and education really is a more predominant current problem than the hypothetical one of saving millions of lives.

One could easily argue that the mass arms buildup of the Cold War prevented untold amounts of death.

 

[BigRob]

You must be kidding! You think our military has saved millions of lives??? Where?

It is easily argued that policies pursued through the Cold War prevented many deaths. We have intervened all over the world under the premise of "saving lives" (Libya, Somalia, a whole lot of UN missions etc)

And graduating high school, and getting a college education is useless???

Clearly I never said that...and you know it. An education is very important, but that doesn't negate the importance of the military either.

You know, I think you are currently so far off the deep end, that I better leave it at that.

Only if you misinterpret my comments.

The reason military spending went down in the 90's is because Clinton was not a warmonger. . .he didn't need to demonstrate "US superiority" by the size of its military, he improved the economic climate, which was a lot more convincing (and less deadly!).

1992–96 – Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.

1992 – Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.

1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch)

1992–95 – Somalia. Operation Restore Hope. Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)

1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.

1994–95 – Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy. U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.

1994 – Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.

1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.

1996 – Liberia. Operation Assured Response. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound....

1996 – Central African Republic. Operation Quick Response. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees," and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response, responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22.

1997 – Albania. Operation Silver Wake. On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.

1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.

1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.

1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations.

1998 – Iraq. Operation Desert Fox. U.S. and British forces conduct a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.

1998 – Guinea-Bissau. Operation Shepherd Venture. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.

1998–99 – Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach. On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.

1998 – Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia.

1999–2001 - East Timor. Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.

1999 – Serbia. Operation Allied Force. NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.

Also, The fact that the Cold War just ended made it pretty easy to make military cuts. Scenarios change, and adjustments must be made accordingly.

Then came Bush with his "puppet master" Cheney. . .who obviously had strong ties to Haliburton. . .

So what?

They NEEDED a war. . .even without 9/11, they would have attacked Iraq! And since then, it's history! Only in the last 2 years, with Obama, have we seen a SLIGHT decrease in military spending.

Because the wars are winding down...and were going to wind down anyway.

Whether we are or not living in constant fear is a question of opinion! It is true that, since Obama took away the "danger level" that was used for political reasons under Bush, it is getting better! And yet, we still believe that we have to spend 5 to 6 X more than the rest of the world to "be safe."

We don't spend 5X more than the rest of the world to be "safe", we spend that to ensure we can further our interests globally.

Anyway. We obviously will never agree on much in this subject. You are absolutey buying into everything that is the "10 commandements of the GOP!" and there is no facts, and no arguments that will even trigger enough curiosity or a sense of disconnect to tempt you to look at any other view.

That's too bad.

I am happy to look into other views, but these thinly veiled comments amounting to "you disagree with me, so you are basically an idiot", are what is too bad.