Cost of war: Why we don't feel the financial pain

[CG51]

I found this article interesting. I get the feeling that a lot of people believe that this war will bankrupt this nation.

Cost of war: Why we don't feel the financial pain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18543885/)

Iraq, Afghanistan haven't squeezed the average American's wallet

The global war on terror, as President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=George+W.+Bush) calls the fighting in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Iraq) and Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Afghanistan) and related military operations, is about to become the second-most-expensive conflict in U.S. history, after World War II.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress has approved more than $609 billion for the wars, a figure likely to stand as lawmakers rework their latest spending bill in response to a Bush veto. Requests for $145 billion more await congressional action and would raise the cost in inflation-adjusted dollars beyond the cost of the wars in Korea and Vietnam (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Vietnam).
But the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=United+States) is vastly richer than it was in those days, and the nation's wealth now dwarfs the price of war, economists said. Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy — about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Wal-Mart+Stores+Inc.). Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War.

And this time, the war bill is going directly on the nation's credit card. Unlike his predecessors, Bush is financing a major conflict without raising taxes or making significant cuts in domestic programs. Instead, he has cut taxes and run up the national debt. The result, economists said, is a war that has barely dented the average American's pocketbook and caused few reverberations in the broader economy.
"This war is easier to manage because it's a very small portion of GDP compared to the past," said Robert D. Hormats, a managing director at Goldman Sachs (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=GS&nav=el) and a former Reagan administration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Ronald+Reagan) official who recently published a history of war financing. "Even the borrowing of money is relatively small compared to past wars, so the impact on the economy is relatively minor."
Like all debts, however, the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually come due. While it is unlikely to cause economic upheaval, such as the devastating inflation that followed the Vietnam War, economists foresee substantial increases in government spending to rebuild the nation's exhausted armed forces, care for its disabled veterans and cover rising interest payments.

....................

[annihilation]

600+ billion that could have been spent improving america.......

[Weasel]

600+ billion that could have been spent improving america.......

....I guess you could feed Africa for a long long time. :|

[2Sheds_Jackson]

600+ billion that could have been spent improving america.......

Well we didn't take $600b and bulldoze it into a hole in the ground...

[StukaJr]

I found this article interesting. I get the feeling that a lot of people believe that this war will bankrupt this nation.


Hmmmm... I really don't like comparison to the nation's credit card nor this:



Like all debts, however, the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually come due. While it is unlikely to cause economic upheaval, such as the devastating inflation that followed the Vietnam War, economists foresee substantial increases in government spending to rebuild the nation's exhausted armed forces, care for its disabled veterans and cover rising interest payments.

....................

The only thing is known is that there is more spending ahead and more borrowing... How many more years of borrowing and spending is not known. The article is also banking on healthy economy for unforeseeable future, which is a foolish thing to do...

If anything, I would rather feel the financial pain now than have an imploding economy, rapid inflation or market crash five years down the road.

[Lazy Lob]

....I guess you could feed Africa for a long long time. :|

$600 billion feeding Africa???

And when they run out of cup cakes?

[annihilation]

Well we didn't take $600b and bulldoze it into a hole in the ground...

You can almost argue we did with Iraq.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You can almost argue we did with Iraq.

Well I don't think so. All that sweet, sweet money paid for "stuff". Most of that stuff was American stuff - which paid American salaries, built American businesses - I think you could probably make an even better argument that the war has been a form of American business subsidy. Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup, General Dynamics, Halliburton/KBR, legions of DoD & gov't employees... Yeah sure, it may not be the best way to spend money - I'm just saying that we did get a return on it...even if Iraq itself has not been a model of success. It's not like we took the $600b and shot it into the Sun.

[deagle]

is it a coincidence that gas prices are higher ? could it be that there are interruptions in its exchange ? ask any citizen that question and just check out the responses. sometimes its not obvious (troopers' support network of family struggling to pay bills/rent etc...) for example.

Case in point : the 600 + million or so that could've been used to improve our country (education, border issues, healthcare, employment etc..).

[Hollis]

Case in point : the 600 + million or so that could've been used to improve our country (education, border issues, healthcare, employment etc..).


Also that amount does not even cover the cost of one 9/11. Yep everything is a trade off. Look at the combine cost of policing the USA. Imagine if we had no criminals who much money would go for:

1) feeding the starving in Africa or any where else

2) research on the cure for AIDS

3) educating the inlitertes of the world


BTW. Do you understand the cost, there is a portion of that cost that would still be there with or with out a war, deployement etc. To have a military on hand still costs.

Now if we can get the world to all agree and love one another, we could cut the cost of all the militaries of the world. WOW imagine what we could do with that money?

It is a pisser the money we have to spend to keep our cities from glowing in the dark, not having to take the Shahada, not having to learn the language of our rulers, etc.

[Hollis]

You can almost argue we did with Iraq.


Kind of the far stretch of the imagination.......

[tomonator]

The direction of this thread does not make much sense to me. Are we really going to argue that war is not the best way to spend money? The question is why it is not costing us as individuals' money when there is obviously so much being spent?

[Hollis]

The direction of this thread does not make much sense to me. Are we really going to argue that war is not the best way to spend money? The question is why it is not costing us as individuals' money when there is obviously so much being spent?


Your answer from the article:

"But the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=United+States) is vastly richer than it was in those days, and the nation's wealth now dwarfs the price of war, economists said. Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy — about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Wal-Mart+Stores+Inc.). Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War."


The more people, the more wealth the lighter the burden.

[tomonator]

Yes thank you Hollis. I guess i was wondering if it is a "good thing" that this war is not more of a financial burden on the general public?

[CMNot]

If they were feeling it in the pocket, then the average Joe - like over here - would at least know there was a war on.

What imputus that would give the anti-war movement, I cannot guess...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes thank you Hollis. I guess i was wondering if it is a "good thing" that this war is not more of a financial burden on the general public?

Well - it's an interesting concept - I think Warpig had a thread on it a while back - what exactly is this terrible burden that's fueling the anti-war movement? The average American is blissfully unaware that there's even a war on at all. Of course if you asked me that question, I'd tell you that it's simply used as a lever to get certain individuals into a position of power.

[annihilation]

Well I don't think so. All that sweet, sweet money paid for "stuff". Most of that stuff was American stuff - which paid American salaries, built American businesses - I think you could probably make an even better argument that the war has been a form of American business subsidy. Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup, General Dynamics, Halliburton/KBR, legions of DoD & gov't employees... Yeah sure, it may not be the best way to spend money - I'm just saying that we did get a return on it...even if Iraq itself has not been a model of success. It's not like we took the $600b and shot it into the Sun.

An expensive subsidy, ill give you that....

[2Sheds_Jackson]

An expensive subsidy, ill give you that....

No doubt. I'm not exactly happy about it - just sayin' that this is just one more thing that can be misrepresented to look a lot worse than it is.

$600b is a lot of dough - and I agree it could be better spent. But even as it is, while we're paying that $600b - congress is building bridges to nowhere and paying peanut subsidies.

[foxtrot023]

The only drawback on the war economicaly at the moment is higher inflation risk.

[Cralis]

I'd like to point out for the guy who brought up gas prices, that the vast majority of economists agree that the reason gas prices are so high is because oil companies are either refusing to, or having problems, building new refineries. It has nothing to do with the war. In fact, most of the oil and gas used by the war is bought straight out of the middle east because we don't have to ship it over there!

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119300.html

Just a few examples I found.

[budgie]

600+ billion that could have been spent improving america.......

Agreed. Nobody is threatening bankruptcy but it is money that could have been much better spent...

[Hollis]

Agreed. Nobody is threatening bankruptcy but it is money that could have been much better spent...


You guys are total uncreative.

yes, the money spent on 9/11 to fix all the damage done.

The lives lost in Beriut when the terrorist blw up the Marine Barracks,

the money Saddam stoled from the Iraqi people to fund his BS.

the list is never ending,


NOW all we need to do get rid of the all criminals, terrorists, despots, corruption, illegal drugs, ....etc of the world and we could spend or money on better stuff.

[annihilation]

You guys are total uncreative.

yes, the money spent on 9/11 to fix all the damage done.

The lives lost in Beriut when the terrorist blw up the Marine Barracks,

the money Saddam stoled from the Iraqi people to fund his BS.

the list is never ending,


NOW all we need to do get rid of the all criminals, terrorists, despots, corruption, illegal drugs, ....etc of the world and we could spend or money on better stuff.

You could argue that the money spent on Iraq was miss focused and spent. Could have been used to continue our operation in afghanistan (with a substantional force) and have money to fix our security issues in America.

[Hollis]

You could argue that the money spent on Iraq was miss focused and spent. Could have been used to continue our operation in afghanistan (with a substantional force) and have money to fix our security issues in America.


Yep one could argue till the cows came home.

If a person is anti-war, any argument on waste is to be expected from them.

On A-Stan, has any one ever thought what the war in A-Stan would be like if Saddam was in power?

One article I read felt that it would be worse than the combine war in Iraq and A-Stan if Saddam was still controlling Iraq. I could go into the why, But I will let all our tactical genius' figure it our on their own.


Yes it is speculative, because Saddam is feeding worms instead. That is a good thing, IMHO.

[sinophile]

That a large part of the war funding has gone to American companies and individuals is an important point. But, as important is this...

We can afford to spend 600b on Iraq and Afghanistan (that number was for both conflicts to date). Iran and Syria cannot afford the expense in supporting an insurgency.

Keep in mind both regimes have to spend hundreds of millions on subsidies and security, both regimes face credit restrictions, and both suffer from high inflation.

If the American public can tough this out (they can't) we'll see a form of democracy come to Iran, and a settlement reached on Iraq throughout the region.

[atl]

Yep one could argue till the cows came home.

If a person is anti-war, any argument on waste is to be expected from them.

On A-Stan, has any one ever thought what the war in A-Stan would be like if Saddam was in power?

One article I read felt that it would be worse than the combine war in Iraq and A-Stan if Saddam was still controlling Iraq. I could go into the why, But I will let all our tactical genius' figure it our on their own.


Yes it is speculative, because Saddam is feeding worms instead. That is a good thing, IMHO.

If you could give more info on that article it would be appreciated. I have some thoughts on that myself.

[Hollis]

If you could give more info on that article it would be appreciated. I have some thoughts on that myself.


One of the aspect of taking Saddam out, was first no one in the ME thought we would. After taking Saddam out, it forced support of the terrorist to become clandestine and limited. That cuts the amount of aid and other logistical support that the terrorist would get. This avoided a multi-front war, similar to Viet-Nam where the North Viet-Namese where being openly supplied from a number of countries.

If Saddam remained would have also embolden the terrorist, aid heavily, and actually felt he was invincible. He actually felt if Iraq was invaded he would win the propaganda war and at least broker a cease fire.

Taking Saddam out actually added more stability to the ME, even as others attempt to fill the power vacuum that was left when Saddam was removed.

I'll have to dig up the article, I hope what I wrote is representative of the article. I was relying on memory.

[deadtired]

The cynical side of me keeps thinking that there is no way US would spend these huge amounts of money on anything other than war. It's not a matter of "1 bomber could build 30 schools" or whatever, because there's no way in hell we'd waste that kind of money to build schools. People can argue all they want about the misallocation of funds for social programs and whatnot, but I can't help but feeling that 1.) No more social programs would be funded, and 2.) Our taxes wouldn't be any lower if therre was no war. If the money wasn't spent on the war it wouldn't be spent. Period.

[Hollis]

The cynical side of me keeps thinking that there is no way US would spend these huge amounts of money on anything other than war. It's not a matter of "1 bomber could build 30 schools" or whatever, because there's no way in hell we'd waste that kind of money to build schools. People can argue all they want about the misallocation of funds for social programs and whatnot, but I can't help but feeling that 1.) No more social programs would be funded, and 2.) Our taxes wouldn't be any lower if therre was no war. If the money wasn't spent on the war it wouldn't be spent. Period.


Why don't you check out the amount of Foreign aid the US gives out. Or other packages to states, emergency relief etc. Seems you are smitten with the US is evil notion.

[Durandal]

Well we didn't take $600b and bulldoze it into a hole in the ground...

No, that's true, if we put it into a hole we could have gotten it back. p-)

[Durandal]

Comedy aside what this article overlooks is the larger issues at hand. I know its focusing on the war costs (nothing all that insightful in the article) but the we should be cutting spending (including the war) and reigning in the costs that WILL hit us when we see Social Security pay outs increase AND the Federal pension system which is underfunded by what? Close to a trillion?

What we need are some TRUE fiscal conservatives in the house.

[annihilation]

What we need are some TRUE fiscal conservatives in the house.

Amen, we need real leaders not the crap we have gotten in the last few decades.

[foxtrot023]

Comedy aside what this article overlooks is the larger issues at hand. I know its focusing on the war costs (nothing all that insightful in the article) but the we should be cutting spending (including the war) and reigning in the costs that WILL hit us when we see Social Security pay outs increase AND the Federal pension system which is underfunded by what? Close to a trillion?

What we need are some TRUE fiscal conservatives in the house.

Indeed, and the temptation to ¨print more money¨ will be there, which in turn could raise inflation quite a bit.

[deadtired]

Why don't you check out the amount of Foreign aid the US gives out. Or other packages to states, emergency relief etc. Seems you are smitten with the US is evil notion.

I think my post didn't read quite the way I'd intended it to. I know about the billions given away in foreign aid every year. I know about the aid programs underway in every corner of the world and I've seen how much the US is willing to shell out in emergency relief money.

My point was I don't the people in the US would tolerate spending the amount we spend on defense/emergency relief on anything other than defense/emergency relief. If, during peacetime, a President were to suddenly announce he was asking for $50 billion in addiontional funding for some domestic social program (fighting poverty, education, whatever) I don't think his request would be granted. I'm not saying thats a good thing, it's just my assesment of the political culture of the times.

I'm also not saying anything remotely close to "America is evil." I'm an American. I know we're not evil. I know our government is not evil. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

[little icebear]

Well I don't think so. All that sweet, sweet money paid for "stuff". Most of that stuff was American stuff - which paid American salaries, built American businesses - I think you could probably make an even better argument that the war has been a form of American business subsidy. Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup, General Dynamics, Halliburton/KBR, legions of DoD & gov't employees... Yeah sure, it may not be the best way to spend money - I'm just saying that we did get a return on it...even if Iraq itself has not been a model of success. It's not like we took the $600b and shot it into the Sun.

But who is "we"? The american people as a whole, or merely the major shareholders of companies, affiliated with the government?

I think it was Clinton, who once said something like "What is good for Boeing is good for the U.S."
I do not swallow that.

I do not believe, that the Iraq-Campaign did any good for the ordinary Jack on the Street... quite the contrary.

[ElHombre]

One of the aspect of taking Saddam out, was first no one in the ME thought we would. After taking Saddam out, it forced support of the terrorist to become clandestine and limited. That cuts the amount of aid and other logistical support that the terrorist would get. This avoided a multi-front war, similar to Viet-Nam where the North Viet-Namese where being openly supplied from a number of countries.

If Saddam remained would have also embolden the terrorist, aid heavily, and actually felt he was invincible. He actually felt if Iraq was invaded he would win the propaganda war and at least broker a cease fire.

Taking Saddam out actually added more stability to the ME, even as others attempt to fill the power vacuum that was left when Saddam was removed.

I'll have to dig up the article, I hope what I wrote is representative of the article. I was relying on memory.

Please tell us where to get a six-pack of whatever it is you're drinking. One could take a point-by-point takedown of what you've posted, but I don't think Hood would like the space it would take. Every report is saying that deposing SH is the single flower growing on an entire mound of s**t that the US has dumped on the world.

[Laworkerbee]

Please tell us where to get a six-pack of whatever it is you're drinking. One could take a point-by-point takedown of what you've posted, but I don't think Hood would like the space it would take. Every report is saying that deposing SH is the single flower growing on an entire mound of s**t that the US has dumped on the world.

perfect opportunity missed for a Texas-ism :|

[ElHombre]

what exactly is this terrible burden that's fueling the anti-war movement?

Why don't you go ask (http://www.ivaw.org/faq) some of the troops who are opposed to the war?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

My point was I don't the people in the US would tolerate spending the amount we spend on defense/emergency relief on anything other than defense/emergency relief. If, during peacetime, a President were to suddenly announce he was asking for $50 billion in addiontional funding for some domestic social program (fighting poverty, education, whatever) I don't think his request would be granted.

Well I would respond to that by saying that the cost of the Iraq war pales in comparison to what we already spend on social causes every year. IIRC, we've spent somewhere around $3 trillion on the "war on poverty" - yet the poverty rate has not moved since the late 1960's. And so yeah, plenty of people would speak up and point out that throwing more money at it is probably useless.


But who is "we"? The american people as a whole, or merely the major shareholders of companies, affiliated with the government?

I think it was Clinton, who once said something like "What is good for Boeing is good for the U.S."
I do not swallow that.


The government operates on money from individual and corporate taxes. Therefore, yes, what's good for business helps pay the bills. We all have a vested interest in business - it's they and the our most wealthy members of society who by far, pay the most taxes. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US who own stock or are involved with retirement plans or publicly owned companies that are involved with the market - average people, not old white dudes with monocles and top hats. While I agree war may not have benefited the average Joe - that was not the war's objective. But I maintain that the war has also not harmed the average Joe either.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Why don't you go ask (http://www.ivaw.org/faq) some of the troops who are opposed to the war?

Tell me you're not serious. Please. That's nothing more than a load of fanciful accusations and tinfoil hat exposition. It's the same fluff regurgitated by Cindy Sheehan - I'm kind of surprised you even bothered to post it.

[mudbunny]

Trickledown economics 101.

[Cralis]

Why don't you go ask (http://www.ivaw.org/faq) some of the troops who are opposed to the war?

Who are opposed to the war? Do they magically know something that the troops who support the war might not know?

Please.

I've sacrificed time with my family. Money. Nearly getting killed...which means living with the long term effects. Burn-out. Long-term physical effects - and thats without being hit by enemy fire. Seeing things that no human should ever have to see. I've seen enough.

But there is a just reason for the war, and the President said "go." I'd go back and make the same choice again, even knowing what I know now. Especially knowing the good we've done for some of the people over there. And especially knowing that we've had the chance to kill some of the worst members of humanity and dismantle their control over those unable to defend themselves.

If we leave now, we will throw away those who willingly gave their lives for this cause.

But I'm sure you don't want to know what I think.

BTW, that link is pure crap. Most of the points they bring up fall into one of two categories:

1. based on a lie (for example, "there were no WMDs." Really? Guess I was dreaming.)

2. carrying an arguement to the extreme to make it seem like more of a problem then it really is (for example, "tearing families apart". Believe it or not, at least in the Marine Corps, the statistics show that families are staying together through this more than they did during regular peace-time deployments)

Also, that web site has a ton of real losers. They have a few Marines, but most of those guys are whiney bitches! Absolutely mind blowing.

But to conclude, I personally would appreciate it if all the people whining about "what the troops want" would stop trying to speak for me. Like most of the Marines I know, it really makes us mad because we know your wrong.

[Hollis]

El hombre lives in the mythical world of __________

Who knows, there will always be those who break and run, with all sorts of different reason, some may even be sound or be good. Maybe he is pandering the party line, maybe really want to believe something we all want..PEACE.

The end product for good reasons are for the worse of reasons is the same. It does not support our troops or their families.

It is extremely difficult to in our society where difference of opinions is important to condemn one over another, BUT!! this is not a academic debate. Men and Women who serve our country, OUR COUNTRY, are paying a very dear price in their duty. We have the luxury on the internet and free debate to squander that sacrifice, but should we? No one is going to come into my house to night and murder my family, or do things to them is is happening in Iraq. I can espoused anything and not have to worry about being hurt or killed. Maybe because online to some it is a abstract that Men and Women are dieing for us to play silly games of who is to blame, who mismanaged what, etc, never the less our black type on this internet, newspaper or air ways is being paid for in blood.

That ability has always been paid for in blood, though those who are so contemptuous of that blood will still use it to foster that same contemp for the system that allows them to spread any seditious idea so freely. They may shout, "I support the troops." Yet their words encourages rout. They seek any news of distress so they can say, "I told you so." It is as they wish for even more deaths and tragedy to fall on our Men and Women who serve so they can malign that event to support their own purpose.

Every generation has gone through this paradox of freedom of expressions. I feel, it is important for all of us to be involved in our political process to insure our leaders will serve the people and when we send out troops into harms way, to be there 100% in support of them.

[Mailman]

But who is "we"? The american people as a whole, or merely the major shareholders of companies, affiliated with the government?

Who do you think is employed by Boeing and Haliburton etc? Shareholders or the american people?

Mailman

[James]

Why don't you go ask (http://www.ivaw.org/faq) some of the troops who are opposed to the war?

All 75 of them. rofl

[Durandal]

ABTW. Do you understand the cost, there is a portion of that cost that would still be there with or with out a war, deployement etc. To have a military on hand still costs.

Got argue with you here Hollis.

Check the LATEST emergency bill.

Iraq and AStan have NEVER been funded by the budget and ironically all the money that the military gets, that right now is BITCHING if they do not get it, is also paying for a ton of stuff completely unrelated to the war.


I am not very happy with the level of greed I am seeing right now.

2Sheds can talk all he wants about the trickle down of being employed by or owning stock in defense contractors but, by that logic, taking 600 billion would be just as important in other company owned patents refineries in Texas and batteries.

Personally, what 2Sheds is proposing to us is no different than welfare...except there are CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses.

I mean think about it...

A politico or general retires, get placed on the board of a defense company, after they promoted that company's product and is now living off both his pension which is great (ex upper level offers have fantastic retirement) AND the money won from the contracts his company now has as a result of screwing the tax payers.

Double dipping to the core...

Not too sure how some of you more PRO-U.S. and Army oooyah types can stand this.

I know I cannot.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Got to agree with Durandal.

As good as the US military is.

Does the Half a trillion bucks a year seem to be worth it?

If you look at other nations armed forces. Especially those that do alot of their own research and defence construction/manufacturing. The US should be fielding photon torpedeos and laser blasters.

From the outside it appears the US arms industrial complex is one of the most currupt institutions around.

[Durandal]

Does the Half a trillion bucks a year seem to be worth it?


Actually its more like like 1.2 trillion (more than half our yearly budget).

When you include all the money for military related stuff budgeted into civilian agencies, the out right cost of the military, social services, pensions, medical care and 80% of the interest paid on our national debt, OF WHICH 80% is attributed to the military.

Yeah, I am all about having a strong defense, but if you look at the amount of waste that happens in the military (non-conflict related) its amazing. Our military is SOO big its just as bad as the federal government when it comes to waste.

Our founding fathers warned us of this though I doubt they would even comprehend just how bad it is. I imagine Eisenhower did though...and hence his warning as he left office.

[annihilation]

BUT!! this is not a academic debate. Men and Women who serve our country, OUR COUNTRY, are paying a very dear price in their duty. We have the luxury on the internet and free debate to squander that sacrifice, but should we?

Shouldn't have the president thought about that more than us? He should have thought long and hard to decide this battle (iraq) was worth the sacrifice of the men and women in uniform.

I supported Afghanistan and most other actions, but I couldn't support the invasion of Iraq. Since we are in it, im willing to bite my tongue and hope this new plan works.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Actually its more like like 1.2 trillion (more than half our yearly budget).

When you include all the money for military related stuff budgeted into civilian agencies, the out right cost of the military, social services, pensions, medical care and 80% of the interest paid on our national debt, OF WHICH 80% is attributed to the military.

Yeah, I am all about having a strong defense, but if you look at the amount of waste that happens in the military (non-conflict related) its amazing. Our military is SOO big its just as bad as the federal government when it comes to waste.

Our founding fathers warned us of this though I doubt they would even comprehend just how bad it is. I imagine Eisenhower did though...and hence his warning as he left office.

So this quote from Independance Day does despite being in the movie for humour is actually taking the piss out of the arms industrial complex


President Thomas Whitmore (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000597/): I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?
Julius Levinson (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002139/): You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?

[Hollis]

Shouldn't have the president thought about that more than us? He should have thought long and hard to decide this battle (iraq) was worth the sacrifice of the men and women in uniform.

I supported Afghanistan and most other actions, but I couldn't support the invasion of Iraq. Since we are in it, im willing to bite my tongue and hope this new plan works.


Let me add, that debate is important, the ability to openly challenge is important. That it is a part of protections against despotism. I agree with your approach, but to use other words, to guard our tongues. It is a greater task that requires sklll and care when challenging the government's running of a war during war. How we do it can effect the war effort in a positive or negative manner.

[little icebear]

The government operates on money from individual and corporate taxes. Therefore, yes, what's good for business helps pay the bills. We all have a vested interest in business - it's they and the our most wealthy members of society who by far, pay the most taxes. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US who own stock or are involved with retirement plans or publicly owned companies that are involved with the market - average people, not old white dudes with monocles and top hats.

I´m suspicious about that. Who bears the most of the country´s tax burden?
Who benefited most from the current administration´s tax cutting?

Call me a naive believer in leftist conspiracy theories, but my impression differs from yours.



While I agree war may not have benefited the average Joe - that was not the war's objective. But I maintain that the war has also not harmed the average Joe either.

Considering the amount of sad stories I hear from GIs (i.e. last week I´ve had a few shots together with one guy who later on told me, that he lost his brother in Iraq) and all the civilian casualties in the chaotic, bloody mess which nowadays Iraq is, I wouldn´t say it paid.
Is the world a safer place? I don´t think so.

[little icebear]

Got argue with you here Hollis.

Check the LATEST emergency bill.

Iraq and AStan have NEVER been funded by the budget and ironically all the money that the military gets, that right now is BITCHING if they do not get it, is also paying for a ton of stuff completely unrelated to the war.


I am not very happy with the level of greed I am seeing right now.

2Sheds can talk all he wants about the trickle down of being employed by or owning stock in defense contractors but, by that logic, taking 600 billion would be just as important in other company owned patents refineries in Texas and batteries.

Personally, what 2Sheds is proposing to us is no different than welfare...except there are CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses.

I mean think about it...

A politico or general retires, get placed on the board of a defense company, after they promoted that company's product and is now living off both his pension which is great (ex upper level offers have fantastic retirement) AND the money won from the contracts his company now has as a result of screwing the tax payers.

Double dipping to the core...

Not too sure how some of you more PRO-U.S. and Army oooyah types can stand this.

I know I cannot.


I totally agree.

[caridon]

Why don't you check out the amount of Foreign aid the US gives out. Or other packages to states, emergency relief etc. Seems you are smitten with the US is evil notion.

it's all in how you look at it.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_pergdp-economic-aid-donor-per-gdp

US 0.59 $ /1000$ GDP
Average $3.36 per $1,000 of GDP

that puts you in 21'st place.

[caridon]

I'd like to point out for the guy who brought up gas prices, that the vast majority of economists agree that the reason gas prices are so high is because oil companies are either refusing to, or having problems, building new refineries. It has nothing to do with the war. In fact, most of the oil and gas used by the war is bought straight out of the middle east because we don't have to ship it over there!

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119300.html

Just a few examples I found.

this is a result of crappy laws.
When the US started making anti polution laws. they grandfatherd existing plants. This means that a new plant must compete with old crappy plants (that STILL run without any decent protections.)

/C

[2Sheds_Jackson]

2Sheds can talk all he wants about the trickle down of being employed by or owning stock in defense contractors but, by that logic, taking 600 billion would be just as important in other company owned patents refineries in Texas and batteries.

Personally, what 2Sheds is proposing to us is no different than welfare...except there are CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses.


Hey I won't argue that CEO salaries aren't insane, but it's more than CEO's. It's every employee of those companies, every dollar realized in taxing their earnings, every dollar realized in taxing their purchases and the employees of the companies who made the things they buy. This is capitalism. In case anybody missed it - it's what we do, who we are, and how we win wars. I'm not stating that it is the best way to do things - only that in effect, it is a form of economic stimulation, and actually does the reverse of what many people think it does. That money has not magically left the planet never to be seen again - we do get a return on it. It's not the purpose of the war, only the mechanism that keeps us from winding up exhausted and broke when all is said and done.


I´m suspicious about that. Who bears the most of the country´s tax burden?
Who benefited most from the current administration´s tax cutting?

A quick google will show you who pays what. IIRC in terms of individual tax receipts, the top 1% of earners pays about 35% of the total, and the top 5% pay about 60% of the total. The bottom 50% pay 3%. Below that, its' virtually nothing. In fact, since it was proposed that everybody - not just taxpayers get the Bush tax refund - people who didn't pay a dime in taxes very nearly got a refund anyway.

Based on those numbers, who deserved to benefit more from tax cutting - the people paying the taxes, or the people not paying the taxes?



Considering the amount of sad stories I hear from GIs (i.e. last week I´ve had a few shots together with one guy who later on told me, that he lost his brother in Iraq) and all the civilian casualties in the chaotic, bloody mess which nowadays Iraq is, I wouldn´t say it paid.
Is the world a safer place? I don´t think so.

Well that does remain to be seen. But it seems to me that having thrown our people in there, we owe it to them to fully fund them, get the job done, and get the hell out....not endlessly bicker and use them as a lever for political maneuvering at home. War is always full of sadness, bitterness and difficulty - and this one is no different. But there is no draft.

Listen - if we are going to continue to try to keep America the way it is today, we have to do what it takes - and that means interventionist wars like this to maintain stability in the ME. We can just as well decide to become isolationist, let the world's chips fall where they may- but don't kid yourself that the US won't slide into a deep and long-term economic and social malaise. I just wish we would pick one and go with it.

[little icebear]

Who do you think is employed by Boeing and Haliburton etc? Shareholders or the american people?

Mailman

I hope their wages have doubled... :roll: The regular worker won´t get much of the share. But hey, maybe there are at least less guys who have to fear of unemployment.


War is big business... and the ones who benefit are not the ones who are suffering.

[Mailman]

Big bad capatalists!

The fact is Haliburton, boeing and co all employ large amounts of Americans who in turn "invest" their earnings back in to their communities.

People like you sort of make me laugh because all you will ever see is this great big faceless evil corporate who is hell bent on raping the workings and making as much money as possible. Quite often reality is very different from what you perceive as being reality.

I now work for one of those large faceless corporations who makse billions of £££ in profit every year BUT they also invest a hell of a lot of money in their staff and in the communities they are based around. Yes shareholders profit, but so do every day average workers.

Mailman

[little icebear]

...all you will ever see is this great big faceless evil corporate who is hell bent on raping the workings and making as much money as possible.


Sort of, yeah. Got me.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

all you will ever see is this great big faceless evil corporate who is hell bent on raping the workings and making as much money as possible.

QFT - it's as if people imagine businesses as a separate entity apart from people....some giant evil robot with a corporate logo on it. They don't see the thousands of regular people who actually make up that corporation. The same goes for government -only that robot wears a black suit and has sunglasses.

[little icebear]

A quick google will show you who pays what. IIRC in terms of individual tax receipts, the top 1% of earners pays about 35% of the total, and the top 5% pay about 60% of the total. The bottom 50% pay 3%. Below that, its' virtually nothing. In fact, since it was proposed that everybody - not just taxpayers get the Bush tax refund - people who didn't pay a dime in taxes very nearly got a refund anyway.

Based on those numbers, who deserved to benefit more from tax cutting - the people paying the taxes, or the people not paying the taxes?


Maybe I read the wrong newspapers and have listened to M. Moore way to often...
But I don´t want to go further into that, as long as I haven´t checked, if I need to get my facts straight.



Well that does remain to be seen. But it seems to me that having thrown our people in there, we owe it to them to fully fund them, get the job done, and get the hell out

Right. I think it should not have happened in the first place, but now it´s to late and one has to deal with the situation.
I´m afraid getting out is not as easy as getting in. Frankly, I don´t see how this is supposed to go on...



Listen - if we are going to continue to try to keep America the way it is today, we have to do what it takes - and that means interventionist wars like this to maintain stability in the ME. We can just as well decide to become isolationist, let the world's chips fall where they may- but don't kid yourself that the US won't slide into a deep and long-term economic and social malaise. I just wish we would pick one and go with it.

I am not a pacifist and I do not want the US to become isolationist. Sometimes things need to be done the hard way - e.g. A´stan.

But Iraq? Hell... I´m never going to understand how this could happen. Invading Iraq for the sake of stability? Makes no sense to me and never did.

[Durandal]

Hey I won't argue that CEO salaries aren't insane, but it's more than CEO's. It's every employee of those companies

Yeah, but why not have it be, big oil companies. The argument works JUST the same and we need more refineries...or better batteries and who bunch of nuke plants.

Same concept, just a wWHOLE lot better bang for our buck.

[little icebear]

...only that robot wears a black suit and has sunglasses.

No, it´s more like the idea of old white dudes with monocles and top hats, you mentioned before.

Donald Rumsfeld e.g. is pretty much the perfect embodiment of the military-industrial complex.

Although he´s really got a sense of humor.

[Durandal]

No, it´s more like the idea of old white dudes with monocles and top hats, you mentioned before.

Donald Rumsfeld e.g. is pretty much the perfect embodiment of the military-industrial complex.

Although he´s really got a sense of humor.

He wasn't well like in some parts. As much as I LOATH Rumsfeld, he liked stuff that worked and had quite a few defense contractors quite pissed...especially when you consider the big name projects cancelled (and rightfully so) on his watch.

Unfortunately, he did play the political game.

[Cralis]

Maybe I read the wrong newspapers and have listened to M. Moore way to often...

I would like to point out that Michael Moore is a pathelogical liar and an evil human being. He is a hateful person that has no problems twisting the truth, manipulating the facts, and outright lying in order to spew his hateful trash. I have a deep pity for anyone who chooses to believe him... mostly because I don't understand how anyone could find anything he says as truthful. A little checking shows that nearly everything he says is either a lie, or manipulated to give a different meaning.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/04/17/MichaelMoore/
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

Mockumentary. New one on me. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

Except that his plot summary for that movie doesn't say its fiction:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/plotsummary

And it got awards for best documentary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/awards
Say what?

He's even spawned watch-dog blogs that want to let us know about each of his lies! That takes a special kind of person all right.
http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php

You may be saying "I completely disagree." Thats ok. I'm just saying that maybe you should pay a little closer attention. I had nothing else to do but look up his figures and facts for a few weeks last time I was in Iraq, and I found that everything he says and quotes is either: A> outright wrong, B> manipulated (including one case where he actually re-formatted a newspaper to make it read differently), or C> intentionally misrepresented.


But Iraq? Hell... I´m never going to understand how this could happen. Invading Iraq for the sake of stability? Makes no sense to me and never did.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that the other guy is wrong. There is always something you don't understand. But since the troops are bearing the burden, and the majoriy of us want to shoulder it, don't you think maybe you should step back an let us?

[Durandal]

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that the other guy is wrong. There is always something you don't understand. But since the troops are bearing the burden, and the majoriy of us want to shoulder it, don't you think maybe you should step back an let us?

To be honest the argument "they want to do the job so let them" is probably one of the worst statements you can make.

The soldier does not nor should make policy.

The soldier does, what the People want him or her to do. The President and COngress are their voices. Unfortunately the Executive and Legislative Branches are not listening to anyone really...

[Cralis]

To be honest the argument "they want to do the job so let them" is probably one of the worst statements you can make.

The soldier does not nor should make policy.

The soldier does, what the People want him or her to do. The President and COngress are their voices. Unfortunately the Executive and Legislative Branches are not listening to anyone really...

To me, that first statement says that you don't understand.

Its not that we (the troops) want to make policy. We train for war. We get prepared to do it. Our whole culture is "lets get ready to go kick some ass when the President needs it." So now you want us to fight one... Oorah! It is time to do what we were trained for.

Don't play armchair general. Don't change your mind. Stop fraccing around and let us get it done. Stop taking polls and lets finish the job.

"A true warrior does not want war, nor does he wish to do battle. He merely strives to create a world in which he is no longer needed." - Phil Messina

[annihilation]

To me, that first statement says that you don't understand.

Its not that we (the troops) want to make policy. We train for war. We get prepared to do it. Our whole culture is "lets get ready to go kick some ass when the President needs it." So now you want us to fight one... Oorah! It is time to do what we were trained for.

Don't play armchair general. Don't change your mind. Stop fraccing around and let us get it done. Stop taking polls and lets finish the job.

"A true warrior does not want war, nor does he wish to do battle. He merely strives to create a world in which he is no longer needed." - Phil Messina

As you said you are trained for war but not to police and that is what Iraq in some ways has come down too.

The people of america have given 4 years to the administration plan and what has it produced? We won the war with Iraq but the reconstruction of Iraq is a mess. Outside of the kurds, the other 2 groups don't deserve our help anymore.

[Durandal]

To me, that first statement says that you don't understand.

Oh, I understand, it may not of been what you meant, but I understand. There is a difference. The opinion you expressed is one that I have been hearing more and more.

The only thing I want to hear form soldiers is what they need to do their job and then WE, the people, through our elected representatives, need to make sure they have what they need.

If WE, the people, decide for whatever reason, right or wrong, that it is time to fight or its time to not fight, then the fighter will do what it is told.

That is the harsh reality. Super simplified maybe, but that's it.

You are not there to kick some ass when the President needs its. You are there when, through the permission of the Congress the President wants to go to war and the defense of WE, the people, this nation of States.


Its not that we (the troops) want to make policy. We train for war. We get prepared to do it. Our whole culture is "lets get ready to go kick some ass when the President needs it." So now you want us to fight one... Oorah! It is time to do what we were trained for.

Now is time for you to as you are ordered.


Don't play armchair general. Don't change your mind. Stop fraccing around and let us get it done. Stop taking polls and lets finish the job.

The problem here is that you are confusing when you are told to fight vs HOW you fight. The people of the country, collectively, through representation are the people that tell you when it is time to fight or not. If we approve of the job of our representatives who equip you, authorize, and point you in a direction, then they get reelected.


"A true warrior does not want war, nor does he wish to do battle. He merely strives to create a world in which he is no longer needed." - Phil Messina



". . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (1793.)

"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most ****e to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)

-James Madison

[Cralis]

Oh, I understand, it may not of been what you meant, but I understand. There is a difference. The opinion you expressed is one that I have been hearing more and more.

The only thing I want to hear form soldiers is what they need to do their job and then WE, the people, through our elected representatives, need to make sure they have what they need.

If WE, the people, decide for whatever reason, right or wrong, that it is time to fight or its time to not fight, then the fighter will do what it is told.

That is the harsh reality. Super simplified maybe, but that's it.

That might be true for the army, air force, and navy, but not for the United States Marine Corps.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00005063----000-.html

Aside from the naval-related responsibilities, this is specific:

"The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized."

We do what the President wants. It just happens that what the President wants may be modified by Congress, and we all know its not as simple as that statement, but none-the-less the Marine Corps does as the President orders.


You are not there to kick some ass when the President needs its. You are there when, through the permission of the Congress the President wants to go to war and the defense of WE, the people, this nation of States.

Negative. If it isn't related to the above naval responsibilities, if the President says "no" then the Commandant of the Marine Corps is duty-bound to follow the President's order.


The problem here is that you are confusing when you are told to fight vs HOW you fight. The people of the country, collectively, through representation are the people that tell you when it is time to fight or not. If we approve of the job of our representatives who equip you, authorize, and point you in a direction, then they get reelected.

You elect the President, who tells us when to fight. In a circumspect way, you are correct. HOWEVER, the people CANNOT and DO NOT tell us when we fight. The President does that.

In all honestly, the other armed forces fall under the President's jurisdiction for a limited time. After that the long-term decision to declare war is determined by Congress.

Big problem: Congress declared war. And they haven't taken it back. I realize that comes with the following caveat: "yet." But when Congress declares an end to the war then we can re-visit this issue.


". . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (1793.)

Ah, thats where you don't understand one of the purposes of the Marine Corps. We are not just here for declarations of war, we are here to do the dirty-work that the President needs done EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO DECLARATION OF WAR. Thats the reason why the Marine Corps has historically performed most of the actions overseas. I remember hearing something once about how 6% of the defense budget goes the Marine Corps, but that we do something like 70% of the individual actions overseas.

And no, "individual actions" is not just holding actions in Bosnia, Kuwait, etc. There are a LOT of smaller actions and individual actions that occur that never make the news, or at least headline news.


"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most ****e to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)

-James Madison

That is interesting, except for the fact that Congress backed the declaration of war. Democrats are now trying to, how does it go? Have your cake and eat it too?

[Limeyfellow]

Don't play armchair general. Don't change your mind. Stop fraccing around and let us get it done. Stop taking polls and lets finish the job.



That would be fine if anyone knew what the job was. They had no objectives other than crush the Iraqi army and be welcomed as liberators and then have a pro western democracy setup within a few months later. Or the great plan to defeat the abstract idea of terrorism.

We seem to be in another Lebanon situration like in the 80s. We even see the same rhetics as back then and I believe it eventually will result in the same results. What are the alternatives? Round up the people and send them to the gas chambers? Its a matter of picking the least awful result. I guess at least if we withdrew the Iraqis would then turn their full attentions to al Quieda and wipe them out of the country once and for all.

[Durandal]

That is interesting, except for the fact that Congress backed the declaration of war. Democrats are now trying to, how does it go? Have your cake and eat it too?

ANd now the people, both conservative and liberal...Democrat and Republican are beginning to make noise and are beginning to vote differently BECAUSE of the war.

If the people want the troops home (and I am not saying they are I am discussing realities verse perceived duty to a single leader) the troops come home.

I am not arguing the chain of command I am discussing things at a larger scale. The day we let politicians (including the President) determine tactical actions is the day our politicians never really care about winning the fight.

[Hollis]

That would be fine if anyone knew what the job was. They had no objectives other than crush the Iraqi army and be welcomed as liberators and then have a pro western democracy setup within a few months later. Or the great plan to defeat the abstract idea of terrorism.

.

Seems you are mentioning what the goals are/where.

This is a multi-goal war, there are two countries, and a over all war on terrorism. Each has defined aspects, some maybe shared, some may not be shared.

The anti-War, Left, protango group are hollering there are not goals and are desirous of micromanaging the war with very unreal time lines.

Imagine if WWII was micromanaged in such a way. by 1100 Hrs, the Normandy invasion would have been considered a defeat and people would be saying pull the troops out NOW.

Battle of the Bulge would have been a defeat.

First US Battle in N. Africa. Would cause cries of "Bring the troops home NOW"

Early Pacific Naval Battles would summoned up cries of recapitulation to the Japanese.

Troops are not calling for recapitulation in the GWOT, it is those who set comfortably in front of their computers that do.

As for the abstract notion of terrorism. Let me suggest that 9/11, London bombing and Madrid Bombing was something more than abstract.

[chickenzomby]

If you give out free international aid, you're basically wasting money. The reason is that if you give out something free to anyone, those anyone's become reliant on you and your aid, and the more money that is pumped into it, the more they become reliant on the care given. Not to say that the Africa situation can't be helped, taking down their governments and actually sending in forces (NOT peacekeeping) to take down the rebel and terrorist groups as well seems to be the first step to helping the situation.

Take, for example, the immigration debate that has flared up recently. America and her welfare and Social Securities benefits is free money, which makes it a magnet. The immigrants are metal shavings, attracted by free money and the free things given away in the US (not to say that everyone is trying to get more money for free). No matter how many walls you put up, the magnet is still there. Take away free money and you remove more than 2/3 of the entire Fed. budget.

The current Situation in Iraq is rather poorly managed, mainly because we are forcing 3 separate factions that would normally leave each other alone, and sticking them together. You divide up Iraq into three territories and put all 3 of the different groups in their own little territory. That will fix the problems that we have now.

[foxtrot023]

As I said people, the greatest danger from this war is inflation, as in expenditure the government has to do to cover the war expenses, as that money ain´t exactly growing on trees. And oil prices arent helping on inflation. At the moment it seems contained, but it is a close affair. If inflation rises, they will have to raise rates, and trust me they will if inflation rises, folks will feel the hurt, just like the sub prime companies are feeling it know.

[Cralis]

ANd now the people, both conservative and liberal...Democrat and Republican are beginning to make noise and are beginning to vote differently BECAUSE of the war.

If the people want the troops home (and I am not saying they are I am discussing realities verse perceived duty to a single leader) the troops come home.

I am not arguing the chain of command I am discussing things at a larger scale. The day we let politicians (including the President) determine tactical actions is the day our politicians never really care about winning the fight.

As Hollis mentioned, you are argueing against something that has historically been the way wars are fought. I don't think politicians (in general) should even be involved! Once the declaration is made, it is up to a select few to conduct the war.

Why?

Because otherwise we have the mess that we have now. You cannot have a war by committee. You cannot have a war by vote. You have a war by the commander-in-chief and his commanding generals/admirals.

Any other way and you waste resources and money. As the Marine Corps drills into its people - YOU FOLLOW ORDERS OF THE GUY ABOVE YOU OR PEOPLE DIE. The military is not a democracy...we gave up those rights so that you could have them.

Sure this means that a bad commander (or commander-in-chief) could ruin the whole thing - thats how wars are lost.

But we are FAR from it.

To whoever said we don't have objectives: I've been over this in several other threads and have tired of argueing. THERE ARE OBJECTIVES. Clear. Concise. Accurate. And we've been achieving them. It just takes longer then the average american would like.

Thats why the average american is not, and should not, be involved in the process of conducting a war.

Hollis is a much better speaker then me, so I'll just point you at his recent post.

[Smashed!]

Your answer from the article:

"But the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=United+States) is vastly richer than it was in those days, and the nation's wealth now dwarfs the price of war, economists said. Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy — about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Wal-Mart+Stores+Inc.). Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War."


The more people, the more wealth the lighter the burden.

Yes and the better the empty cycling of banknotes. Oh did I said, the logic behind the article is special? So let's see...why does this war cost so few? Is it because the USD is at a decade lowpoint? Is it it because the US DOD keeps externalizing cost with phoney money? Is it because the "war" actually lasted 4 weeks in Iraq and that the reduced detachment in A-stan is way too small to cause any harm to the overconsumption in the USA? Is it because the war is so partitionned and entangled in a certain area and the rest of the world provides a wonderful cheap workshop that replaces the welfare systems, being effective once upon a time! Is it because the USA unlike the late 40's early 50's and during Viet S.H.I.T. was a fixed value having a direct parity with Gold! Is it because what the DOD pays is simply reduced at half after a few months, directly caused by the concuring wonderful policies of both CEB and FED. Is it because in reality there is no WAR going on, but simply a relentless militarized Police Operation in the Middle East? Or rather isn't it? No it is because americans are getting richer!!! While I would not step up further, I'm helplessly laughing at the whole apologist Shabang... Ah and I loved the reverse malthusianist slogan Hollis, great introduction onto Keynesianism, only you've got it all wrong. Dear sirs I think one word should be the first one to be taught in here. ANACHRONISM Strong111.

[Hollis]

Yes and .... and more wording from the people's daily worker liberation hand book.


You really want to believe don't you? I gather a lot of Neo-leftists coalition with the Extreme Islamic radicals has more to do with a shared faith, than any philosophy one way or the other.

BTW, I really hate to break the news to you, Che's is dead.

OK Gold standard is BS, I now know you are clueless about money and the money stock. After you are finish with Econ 101, take a bunch money, Banking is probably a Econ 300 or 400 series class.


Edited to add, about 80% of the US money stock is not even produced by the fed, it not "Green backs" it is ________________ <-- let you do your own research.

[Smashed!]

You really want to believe don't you? I gather a lot of Neo-leftists coalition with the Extreme Islamic radicals has more to do with a shared faith, than any philosophy one way or the other.

BTW, I really hate to break the news to you, Che's is dead.

OK Gold standard is BS, I now know you are clueless about money and the money stock. After you are finish with Econ 101, take a bunch money, Banking is probably a Econ 300 or 400 series class.


Edited to add, about 80% of the US money stock is not even produced by the fed, it not &quot;Green backs&quot; it is ________________ <-- let you do your own research.

So Gold Standart had nothing to do with the plungeon the Dollar took, nor with Stagfaltion? Neither had it something to do with high personnel cost (L in eco 101). Listen Buddy I know you're tired, and need some coffe cups, and I know you can't get to the point that when half of the world was out of reach of your marketeers, well any thing gets harder. More people more money...great. Although historically and factually false. Won't keep up with that. And I don't know what you're looking at, but you should keep a clean record when it comes to debates. Every discussion is different. Now please explain me what the New internationalist has to do with the fact that wealth in the USA does not profit the state at the level it could allow it to simply wage wars the way it wants. The Fed doesn't produce money it only shows the shining path, comrade. Strong Eur/Feeble USD how convenient, how concuring.

[Hollis]

So Gold Standart had nothing to do with the plungeon the Dollar took, nor with Stagfaltion? Neither had it something to do with high personnel cost (L in eco 101). Listen Buddy I know you're tired, and need some coffe cups, and I know you can't get to the point that when half of the world was out of reach of your marketeers, well any thing gets harder. More people more money...great. Although historically and factually false. Won't keep up with that. And I don't know what you're looking at, but you should keep a clean record when it comes to debates. Every discussion is different. Now please explain me what the New internationalist has to do with the fact that wealth in the USA does not profit the state at the level it could allow it to simply wage wars the way it wants. The Fed doesn't produce money it only shows the shining path, comrade. Strong Eur/Feeble USD how convenient, how concuring.


OK Feds make about 20% of the money stock, Your wrong there, it is good old green backs and coins.

Sorry, your wording is awkward, I really don't understand what else your trying to say. Are you using a translator?

Exchange rate is just another subject, Maybe ask our Maoist Comrades why they tie China's currency value to the dollar?

BTW, leftist econ theories are based on justifing their own act of being and are very clueless about Western Economics. Take some Econ, OK..

[Smashed!]

OK Feds make about 20% of the money stock, Your wrong there, it is good old green backs and coins.

Sorry, your wording is awkward, I really don't understand what else your trying to say. Are you using a translator?

Exchange rate is just another subject, Maybe ask our Maoist Comrades why they tie China's currency value to the dollar?

BTW, leftist econ theories are based on justifing their own act of being and are very clueless about Western Economics. Take some Econ, OK..

Dude, wtf? Have you read me? I'm telling you the DOD is borrowing money for it's war! What the FED has to do with money made by the Stock? Borrowing...money! Money that is cheap= Dollar right now! You actually don't get it do you? Because you buy 45% of their consumption goods111. And they almost a quarter of your periodical Treasury Bonds. Just have look. You know what serves as phoney money for the mega police operation in the middle east.

[Hollis]

Dude, wtf? Have you read me? I'm telling you the DOD is borrowing money for it's war! What the FED has to do with money made by the Stock? Borrowing...money! Money that is cheap= Dollar right now! You actually don't get it do you? Because you buy 45% of their consumption goods111. And they almost a quarter of your periodical Treasury Bonds. Just have look. You know what serves as phoney money for the mega police operation in the middle east.


I do read you, I don't speak Code. As I mentioned earlier your wording is Awkward. I am sure one of your regular party member who reads the same stuff as you, can understand you and your terminology.

Other words, I don't speak neo leftist gibberish.

Maybe read your own stuff, Money stock comment came from your statement; "The Fed doesn't produce money it only shows the shining path"

The FED in the US is the Federal Reserve Board.

DOD gets it's money from Congress, where Congress gets it, is another story.

[California Joe]

Its not that we (the troops) want to make policy. We train for war. We get prepared to do it. Our whole culture is "lets get ready to go kick some ass when the President needs it." So now you want us to fight one... Oorah! It is time to do what we were trained for.

Don't play armchair general. Don't change your mind. Stop fraccing around and let us get it done. Stop taking polls and lets finish the job.


It's supposed to be "when Congress authorizes it" not when "the President gets a wild hair up his arse." And frankly just because you need an outlet for years of testosterone fueled training isn't exactly a reason for starting sh*t halfway around the world. What exactly do you mean by "finish the job" because as I see it we are in the middle of a civil war and the definition of "bad guy" has become anyone with a gun in the vicinity of US personnel. I have yet to hear a viable solution to what exactly constitutes clear victory. That decision has to be made by a pay grade much higher up the chain, and for chrissakes, quit acting like the Marines are ancient Sparta or some sh*t. They do what they're told just like all the other branches of the military.

[Hollis]

CJ, your post raised a question for me. The Term "clear victory". Obviously taking Saddam and his army out was done. I really don't know if we can define a clear victory now. Is it when the Iraqis have peace and harmony, as crazy as Cowboy bar on Saturday night when the beer is free, when we (MNF) pull out.

Sort of like at the End of WWII, the army is defeated, now what? I still believe victory is only in the hands of Iraqis. Maybe that is why that term is so hard to define and has gotten to be a big political foot ball.


Look at A-Stan, the Russians left and several years later the Taliban took over. I would say, the Afghanis lost, Yes the Russian left, but the Taliban took over.

It seems to me, at some point it will be determined that the Iraqis can handle their own affairs and we can call that a win. Other wise, a loss if we leave the Iraqis to be taken over by another Saddam or taliban type government. I don't really see the US having complete control of the situation. The other players in the game of Iraqi Self government are also equally involved in the win or loss.

It is almost as asking how long is a piece of string. I don't think we will know what actually constitutes a victory till we get there

[California Joe]

Hollis, you're exactly right. I don't think "clear" will be gained in this particular clusterf*ck. Not everyone will ever be satisfied with the outcome. No matter what. It is in their hands but all the different factions also have their own ideas as to what constitutes "victory" or even "normalcy". I'm pretty sure that at this point we will be "damned if we do, damned if we don't". In the mean time, the members of our military are getting shot at and killed. While I admire Cralis' dedication to go out and do the job they were trained for and kick some arse, that sentiment seems to wear thin after the first few deployments when fatigue and family obligations and frustration set in...

[Hollis]

I agree CJ....

There was a political commentator that said the way to insure peace is to have democracy. I think he meant that the partisan political environment would make it impossible to effectively fight a war. I think Viet-Nam demonstrated it and so is this conflict. At home the war does not cost the average person anything. So politicians can play, Hey vote for me, at the cost of Our troops live.

I think the tangos know this, far better than the average American.

It is like that in war, we need a dictatorship....... But to do that we can all kiss our freedoms good bye. The big battle in terms of winning is at the home front. We will keep bleeding our soldiers in the ME until the home front battle can be "won" or resolved.

[chickenzomby]

I agree CJ....

There was a political commentator that said the way to insure peace is to have democracy. I think he meant that the partisan political environment would make it impossible to effectively fight a war. I think Viet-Nam demonstrated it and so is this conflict. At home the war does not cost the average person anything. So politicians can play, Hey vote for me, at the cost of Our troops live.

I think the tangos know this, far better than the average American.

It is like that in war, we need a dictatorship....... But to do that we can all kiss our freedoms good bye. The big battle in terms of winning is at the home front. We will keep bleeding our soldiers in the ME until the home front battle can be "won" or resolved.
Which is probably why we need more politicians who were soldiers (actual soldiers mind).

inflation can be smashed if you make the money in the country gold. No paper money, credit cards yes, but no paper money. Currently, if the feds spend too much, they then raise the taxes or take out a loan. This makes them print more paper dollars, resulting in inflation. Gold money is good, paper money is not so good.

[Smashed!]

I do read you, I don't speak Code. As I mentioned earlier your wording is Awkward. I am sure one of your regular party member who reads the same stuff as you, can understand you and your terminology.

Other words, I don't speak neo leftist gibberish.

Maybe read your own stuff, Money stock comment came from your statement; "The Fed doesn't produce money it only shows the shining path"

The FED in the US is the Federal Reserve Board.

DOD gets it's money from Congress, where Congress gets it, is another story.

It was sarcasm buddy.

[Smashed!]

CJ, your post raised a question for me. The Term "clear victory". Obviously taking Saddam and his army out was done. I really don't know if we can define a clear victory now. Is it when the Iraqis have peace and harmony, as crazy as Cowboy bar on Saturday night when the beer is free, when we (MNF) pull out.

Sort of like at the End of WWII, the army is defeated, now what? I still believe victory is only in the hands of Iraqis. Maybe that is why that term is so hard to define and has gotten to be a big political foot ball.


Look at A-Stan, the Russians left and several years later the Taliban took over. I would say, the Afghanis lost, Yes the Russian left, but the Taliban took over.

It seems to me, at some point it will be determined that the Iraqis can handle their own affairs and we can call that a win. Other wise, a loss if we leave the Iraqis to be taken over by another Saddam or taliban type government. I don't really see the US having complete control of the situation. The other players in the game of Iraqi Self government are also equally involved in the win or loss.

It is almost as asking how long is a piece of string. I don't think we will know what actually constitutes a victory till we get there

Talibs were afghans too...and for christ's sake it's Soviets.

[Hollis]

Talibs were afghans too...and for christ's sake it's Soviets.


I am not anti-Soviet or Russian. Something to ponder, yes it is not part of this thread, What do you think the end result would be if Russa and the US became very good friends. We could also throw in China.

Then if we add the other Allies of the US/Russa/China, what a interesting world it would be.

BTW in the Cold war, both east and west did really stupid things in the justification called the Cold War.

"
Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passé faisons table rase
Foules, esclaves, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout
C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain"


Now apply it to this thread.

[Smashed!]

I am not anti-Soviet or Russian. Something to ponder, yes it is not part of this thread, What do you think the end result would be if Russa and the US became very good friends. We could also throw in China.

Then if we add the other Allies of the US/Russa/China, what a interesting world it would be.

BTW in the Cold war, both east and west did really stupid things in the justification called the Cold War.

"
Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passé faisons table rase
Foules, esclaves, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout
C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain"


Now apply it to this thread.

There is one only problem...don't mistake my field of study to be my political leaning. I'm not a commie, from the beggining you're thinking I'm one.

Yet I'm not a commie. Although I have alot of sympathy for the ideas, the whole issue will always remain implementation. Am I'm not willing to sacrifice anything for asses like some around this Forum.

Funny heh, but you've still got a ticket for the French Riviera buddy.

[Hollis]

There is one only problem...don't mistake my field of study to be my political leaning. I'm not a commie, from the beggining you're thinking I'm one.

Yet I'm not a commie. Although I have alot of sympathy for the ideas, the whole issue will always remain implementation. Am I'm not willing to sacrifice anything for asses like some around this Forum.

Funny heh, but you've still got a ticket for the French Riviera buddy.

I think you are misreading me too. First Bottle of wine is on me.

[Smashed!]

I think you are misreading me too. First Bottle of wine is on me.


Friends don't pay...:hug:

[Mastermind]

Always, the politicians need boogymen to spook the people...to enliven them, to bend them to their will. The merchants of war...the mega military industrial complex...demands more and more. We are now actually building near-trillion dollar submarines just to keep the antiquated and obsolete industry alive...the same is true of the billion dollars per copy of obsolete manned bomber industry. How on earth could these industries survive without a need? How can the expenses be justified? Think of the massive motivations involved here. Just as the Vietnam war cost could never ever be justified...not by moral excuses nor of national security excuses...most certainly the lives ruined on both sides could never be excused for the stated goal...we destroyed the nation to keep it free? How utterly absurd is that? It was then as it is now, the motivations of the disgustingly wealthy to move this war mountain to keep their petty interests alive. What is next? How do we justify 3600 nuclear warheads by today's standards of national affairs? We simply create another nuclear boogy man...Iran...a comparitively insignificant nation that can never be a serious threat...but, now that our electorate is all "whipped" up over the "nuclear threat" Iran poses...we can go on as if it was still 1955!

This is absurd and insane by any standard. That is what has us confused...that is what is killing our kids...that is what is draining our treasurey and it is out of control and there is absolutely nothing on the visual horizon that will get it back in control. Until people wake up and realize what these politicans working for the weapons builders are doing to our country, to our future.. to our kids...it will not stop!

[Cralis]

We are now actually building near-trillion dollar submarines just to keep the antiquated and obsolete industry alive...

Silly me, I thought we were building submarines because they are the best way to track shipping and the best way to get intelligence on enemy navies without being detected.



This is absurd and insane by any standard. That is what has us confused...that is what is killing our kids...that is what is draining our treasurey and it is out of control and there is absolutely nothing on the visual horizon that will get it back in control. Until people wake up and realize what these politicans working for the weapons builders are doing to our country, to our future.. to our kids...it will not stop!

I don't see it that way. There are SOOO many things that we could have in the military IF CONGRESS WOULD FUND IT. They won't. Because what your saying is mostly untrue.

The truth is that congress knows that the day we give up building our military is the day that we lose the next war. Period.

[Mastermind]

That is exactly what the "congressionals" want us to think that the continual building of the military is an absolute necessity. But..think about it. Why are we still building a fleet of subs that were designed to fight the cold war? The Russians have realized they now need to change their philosophy and have phased their systems way back...out of practicality and fiscal necessity. Our massive spending on outrageous military systems is fantastic. Land Warrior is another fine example of a system gone nuts....and some of the lunatic helicopter designes they are entertaining are just beyond anything necessary...The huge mega corporations have everyone in their hip pocket and the pols are dancing their lovely little tune. Look up your congress critter and check out the links to their prime contributors and where the money comes from via loop-hole orgs. As a voting people, we don't stand a fvcking chance in this corrupt atmosphere...

[Durandal]

That is exactly what the "congressionals" want us to think that the continual building of the military is an absolute necessity. But..think about it. Why are we still building a fleet of subs that were designed to fight the cold war? The Russians have realized they now need to change their philosophy and have phased their systems way back...out of practicality and fiscal necessity. Our massive spending on outrageous military systems is fantastic. Land Warrior is another fine example of a system gone nuts....and some of the lunatic helicopter designes they are entertaining are just beyond anything necessary...The huge mega corporations have everyone in their hip pocket and the pols are dancing their lovely little tune. Look up your congress critter and check out the links to their prime contributors and where the money comes from via loop-hole orgs. As a voting people, we don't stand a fvcking chance in this corrupt atmosphere...

X2 for truth...

Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves and Eisenhower would be right next them laughing (or crying) saying "I told you so!"

[Atlantic Friend]

The problem is at some point the weapons programs cease to be a means to an end (to defeat a potential foe in a given situation) and become an end it itself (we have to have this new weapon system because it's way cool and we just have to have it, we'll see if it's adapted later).

And as MM said, when a large industrial base which depends on government subsidies and contracts meets a large political base which needs money to get elected, when in the background being "tough on defense" becomes an issue by itself, it's no wonder we end up with the current defense budget situation.