Our current military readiness

Bring them home.[/QUOTE]

Bringing home U.S. soldiers would have negligible effect on how much the U.S. has to spend on personnel cost. I wish you could reply in something on this issue other than worthless sayings.

 

And this does not even attempt to answer the charge that the American military is hollowed out. (Instead, it merely speaks to "[d]efense spending," generically--without addressing the charge that this spending has not kept our equipment up to date.)[/QUOTE]


Nice graph, wonder where ya got it. So you're saying we spent all that for "hollowed out" results. Gee, well, take more $ out of society off of the unsubstantial people, the aristocracy appreciates your blind support.

 

I've already proven how wrong you are. You just won't admit it as you've drunk the kool-aid of "OMG the U.S. spends too much on the military!!!""

 

Odd isn't it, that in our free democraticv society, the public can not ever know the reality of our military spending.

 

Not even close. You just bought into the hype. China and Russia get by with one. Maybe we can do the same. Time for europe to grow up

 

Ah, another conspiracy monger.

 

Bringing home U.S. soldiers would have negligible effect on how much the U.S. has to spend on personnel cost. I wish you could reply in something on this issue other than worthless sayings.[/QUOTE]
Closing bases over seas and cutting our CBG's in half would save billions and make us twice as safe. Why is that not a good thing?

 

"Kool-aide". with an 'e' mind you is not an answer for anything, you go back to that quite a bit, anything else?

 

China's building carriers as fast as they can. And neither needs as many as the U.S. because they have fewer overseas commitments.

Russia doesn't need any at all as they can walk or drive to anywhere they have economic and political interests.

 

You never have anything of substance rebuttal wise. Pretty sad.

 

Closing bases over seas and cutting our CBG's in half would save billions and make us twice as safe. Why is that not a good thing?[/QUOTE]

On what basis do you say it would make the U.S. "twice as safe"?

 

Complete BS. this thread is loaded with solid reasoning including hard numbers to support it.

All you've got is "OH MY!!! THE EVIL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!!"

 

Yeah, lots of great world powers walked or drove to their definitive economic and political interests. Today’s great powers merely mindphucks their population.

 

Because your power structure will not allow that, war is business and a way to redirect public funding into private hands.

 

Ike. When "conservatives" were actually conservative.

 

And the mindless conspiracy mongering continues

 

China's only threat to the US is as an emerging economy, but yeah, the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class will want a war over that eventually

 

All anyone need to is look at all our endless wars that have no end and all those we wish to add to the list.

 

'

I take it you've never read ALL of that famous speech? In it Eisenhower calls for a LARGE standing military because in future conflicts the U.S. wouldn't have time to mobilize.

 

List a few businesses that have profited excessively due to any wars fought since World War Two MORE than they would have in peacetime anyway?

Halliburton always comes up but Halliburton doesn't supply military hardware and it was doing quite well in peacetime anyway.

 

Due diligence something you’re not into doing yourself?

It's not tough, no "Kool-aid" involved, here's a couple starter links, dig, dig, dig more.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/02/28/ten-companies-profiting-most-from-war/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_for_Sale:_The_War_Profiteers

 

As always, it is about balance, find some.

 

Oh my goodness. Wounded Warrior Project? You mean the group that has sued any other organization with a name even similar (even those which were founded years prior)? A group that has a questionable track record in actually helping veterans, and has historically spent 40% of it's income on fundraising?

A group that has been under fire for years, and most veterans refuse to associate with anymore? And you talk about denial?

Or how about the VA? I oppose Government Health Care because I have suffered under it for decades. I long made the challenge that I would not trust it unless they were able to fix the VA first. And guess what? It is still broken, and we all know that. Just yesterday news broke of an 81 year old veteran with skin ulcers, broken ribs, and severely dehydrated was refused admittance to a VA facility.

The system is unable to take care of those who are retired and rely on it for their health care, and you talk about denial and easing your conscience?

To be honest, I hear things like that and do not think you give a damn about veterans at all. It is just one more political football for you to throw around. And your little Socialist rant at the end only drives that home even more.

 

Got something from a credible source? Wikipedia is very good on information about celebrities, movies, and noncontroversial issues. Much less so on modern controversial issues.

The first source is something called the "Stockholm Peace Institute" which one can assume by its name has an agenda of being against war.

 

I believe in balance. I don't believe the U.S. needs an active duty conventional military as large as it had during the latter stages of the Cold War and I certainly don't believe it needs as large a nuclear arsenal as it had back then.

But basically "cutting everything in half" and retreating in to fanatical (and supremely dangerous) isolationism as Vegas Giant (and others) have suggested is even more dangerous as far as I'm concerned.