A question for Republicans that I've had for a long time

[findingZzero]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

Eisenhower (Rep.) said it all in 1961

Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance - YouTube

 

[paintman]

I can see a small importance in welfare for instances like a single mom who's dead beat husband left her with the kids and she is going to school to make a better life. with the intentions of getting off of it. but then their are people like the parents who have kids at the school my wife works at. a parent told my wife that she was going to loose her welfare benefits so she had to have another kid to keep them.
for reasons like that I despise most people on the program. but I believe some people truly need it and do use it right. (very small few im sure)

but I believe our military should be second to none. no expense spared when It comes to making sure our country is safe and CANT be invaded. I don't think republicans just want to spend money on war. most of us just want to make sure we are safe and protected from foreign enemies before we give some low live, no working p.o.c. a free pay check.

 

[jamil]

The defense of our nation is a Constitutional mandate for Congress
Providing for some 30 year old college student activist to have free birth control pills is not.

It can't get much simpler than that if we want to hang onto our Constitutional nature as a country. Otherwise Congress becomes a "if if feels good, do it" government.

Who do you think is running the show now? It's the generation the hippies raised. The generation that advocated turning on, tuning in, and dropping out, raised the politicians, press, educators, legislators, judges, and hollywood powered influential people of today. And the bad part is that that generation raised the next.

So it's natural for people like Streak to spew all that silly progressive **** they taught him as if it were real enlightenment, and they see that they will win, because the people who know better are becoming too few through attrition.

The trendy allure of pseudo morality; being seen advocating for the poor, yet without real sacrifice; the facile generosity of giving away other people's money. I suppose it's intoxicating being a social hero.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Okay. Puerto Rico was invaded? Have to read more. How about, continental US territories not "liberated" from Spain in 1898, or the islands of Kiska and Attu, if that helps. (And yes, I realize you're talking about the Philippine Islands, which have since become not-US.)

As to "duh", are you seriously saying Russia and China have the same ambitions as Nazi Germany and Italy?

If so, what countries have they invaded in the last 20 years. Now, what countries has the US invaded, erm, "liberated" in the last 20 years? And we should be worried about being invaded?

Seriously. You think China or Russia would invade the US for land and/or resources? And that such a gambit would not result in their annihilation? Somehow the Italian invasion of Albania pales in comparison. At the very least the Italian army didn't have to cross the Pacific to occupy Tirane. Germany couldn't even get its army across the English Channel, and they had the most powerful army and air force at the time (and considerable naval assets for the 30 mile cruise).

I see your point. Two legs bad, four legs good. And some animals are more equal than others.

On one hand, you ask why we need a large military. When I named two world powers which have large military forces and the capability to attack us, you insist that they won't do that. I'm sure Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan and the Philippines could argue with you based on past history and present operations.

 

[88GT]

Okay. Puerto Rico was invaded? Have to read more. How about, continental US territories not "liberated" from Spain in 1898, or the islands of Kiska and Attu, if that helps. (And yes, I realize you're talking about the Philippine Islands, which have since become not-US.)

It doesn't matter what as happened in the past. The past is not an accurate predictor of future action when it comes to the behavior of nation-states. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

As to "duh", are you seriously saying Russia and China have the same ambitions as Nazi Germany and Italy?

Maybe not now. But can you seriously predict with any certainty the likelihood of events in the future that will preclude a repeat of such behavior?

If so, what countries have they invaded in the last 20 years. Now, what countries has the US invaded, erm, "liberated" in the last 20 years? And we should be worried about being invaded?

Perhaps the only reasons empire-building has been put on hold in the last 20 years is because the current political paradigm of international geo-politics is that the status quo should be maintained at all costs. It is only because the concept of going beyond one's borders has only recently fallen out of favor that we have not seen what the entire history of human civilization experienced on a regular basis. Our current paradigm is not going to last. Before I die, there will be a major conquest of one nation by another. Of this, I am confident.

Seriously. You think China or Russia would invade the US for land and/or resources?

Why wouldn't they? Seriously.

And that such a gambit would not result in their annihilation?

Arguably, it would if they tried it today or in the near future. But what about in the not-so-near future, when the dollar is no longer the world's currency, when the economic policies of the first decades of the 21st century relegated the U.S. to a bit player in world politics, when the power shift results in someone else being consider the "world's super power?"

Somehow the Italian invasion of Albania pales in comparison. At the very least the Italian army didn't have to cross the Pacific to occupy Tirane. Germany couldn't even get its army across the English Channel, and they had the most powerful army and air force at the time (and considerable naval assets for the 30 mile cruise).

Germany never attempted a full-scale invasion of England. The "can't" you describe is more of a "better not try it" than "tried and failed." Tactically, the Third Reich was hit-or-miss in its decisions. All else being equal, I would bet that a superior strategist and tactician could have succeeded where Germany failed. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the outcome that did occur was the only outcome that could occur. Or that the status quo is an indicator of the future. Most people didn't see an end to the Iron Curtain. And look what happened there.

Part of what keeps America safe from a full-scale invasion is the assumption on the part of the rest of the world that our response would be swift and violent. Eliminate the factors that contribute to that assumption and you have eliminated one of the leading factors keeping us safe. Whether it's a weak leader who is considered impotent and will refuse to respond in kind, or a physical reduction in our ability to respond. Weakness is provocative. We aren't considered weak yet. But if/when the time comes that we are perceived as being weak enough to be defeated, and the risks associated with an invasion are outweighed by the benefits of success, there won't be a reason NOT to invade. Hell, there's considerable reason TO invade. Imagine the prestige of being the nation that took down the U.S. Rome fell to barbaric tribes picking at it's border lands (in part anyway). And look how long the Roman empire lasted. It's a fool that thinks the U.S. is safe, now or in the future.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And I'd also suggest when a nation tells the world they hate you and plan to defeat and destroy you, it's probably prudent to take them at their word, whether you think they can do it or not.

 

[Tnichols00]

Im jumping in late but here we go...

When Bush went to war that was a full bi-partisan decision even Hillary voted for it.

Secondly I promise you I am not Pro-War, IMO we need to stop fighting other peoples wars. By doing so over the last 50 years we have only created other wars for us to fight. We need to get out of fighting other peoples wars and set up our military across the world ready for action just in case.

Thirdly why is it republicans that "Want War" when Democrats have spent more on wars in the last 30 years than Republicans...

 

[CarmelHP]

Germany couldn't even get its army across the English Channel, and they had the most powerful army and air force at the time (and considerable naval assets for the 30 mile cruise).

Yet, some French Duke was able to do it a thousand years earlier.

 

[traderdan]

Spare no expense to remain the mightiest nation (militarily) on earth...Let the able bodied go hungry if they will not work.My point of view is not politically correct,but I believe that the spoils of war belong to the victor...Pick a fight with us??We are gonna OWN you!

 

[88GT]

Spare no expense to remain the mightiest nation (militarily) on earth...Let the able bodied go hungry if they will not work.My point of view is not politically correct,but I believe that the spoils of war belong to the victor...Pick a fight with us??We are gonna OWN you!

It's the historically correct (as in accurate) approach to world politics though. And from a preservation standpoint, I've not seen one better.

 

[traderdan]

Call me foolish and old-fashioned,but I still believe that we are the kindest nation (at least of any size) on the planet,and since someone will always be dominant it should be US.

 

[Double T]

I agree that armies have a purpose, but do we really need one as big as ours even in peace time? The US has the world's first AND second largest Air Forces. We have, what, seven aircraft carriers? Is all that really necessary?

Also, would it be so bad if some of the money spend on these wars would have been spent on medical research or tuition assistance or infrastructure or NASA? The bill for the Iraq War alone is around $1.2 trillion. If you add in estimations for long term veteran care, I've seen estimations of $6 trillion. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or better yet for fiscal conservatives, wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus for a change?

As long as our boys keep coming home in flag draped boxes, it's not peace time. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Welfare spending is NOT needed. People have no desire to save money, or even earn money. Thus when a small scale SHTF they are in worse circumstances because they have no nest egg, or back up plan.

Military spending is a necessity due to the reasons Que mentioned, but I will go one step further. We are not at peace, we are at war with evil people, who will stop at nothing to kill someone.


If we want to cut spending, there needs to be an overhaul on the entire wellfare state. People who will die if they get medicaid/medicare cuts should remain getting them. People with headaches should not. Anyone with a mental disorder that is not currently under care of a physician should not get a social security check. Stop paying for SS kids to go to college for free. Stop spending money on useless research that most people accept as common sense. Stop giving tax refunds OVER what someone pays in just because they have kids (pay in 1500, get 7k back is utterly rediculous). These are small examples.

On both sides of the aisle, there is wasteful spending. It's time to prune some things. With pruning comes pain, and pain builds strength and character. Those were things our country used to pride itself in. Our current generation probably would not survive a second "great depression" type of economic downfall. It's only a matter of time.

 

[cobber]

On one hand, you ask why we need a large military. When I named two world powers which have large military forces and the capability to attack us, you insist that they won't do that. I'm sure Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan and the Philippines could argue with you based on past history and present operations.

I said we don't need a large military? Um... where?

Re your examples, Afghanistan has been occupied by the UK, USSR and USA. Chechnya was not a sovereign nation until what year? Ditto Georgia. Vietnam attacked by France, US, and China. Korea? Um, who attacked Korea exactly? Japan, ditto, pretty sure only the US. Japan has done a number on Russia, China, the ABCD powers. The Philippines? Um. Japan.

So I take from this that our most likely enemy is Japan...


Basically status quo powers, which the US, Russia and China all are, have no reason to attack/invade each other. They are vested in the system. They may rattle sabers, but they don't usually make war on each other. WWI is an exception that proves the rule. Nazi Germany and Japan and Italy were not status quo powers, but were trying to overturn the status quo.

None of them faced nuclear annihilation either. Until 1945.

It doesn't matter what as happened in the past. The past is not an accurate predictor of future action when it comes to the behavior of nation-states. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?


Maybe not now. But can you seriously predict with any certainty the likelihood of events in the future that will preclude a repeat of such behavior?


Perhaps the only reasons empire-building has been put on hold in the last 20 years is because the current political paradigm of international geo-politics is that the status quo should be maintained at all costs. It is only because the concept of going beyond one's borders has only recently fallen out of favor that we have not seen what the entire history of human civilization experienced on a regular basis. Our current paradigm is not going to last. Before I die, there will be a major conquest of one nation by another. Of this, I am confident.


Why wouldn't they? Seriously.

Santayana tells us those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm not sure he had advice on those who fail to heed things that never happened.

The absence of war among status quo powers goes back further than 20 years. I would argue it's relatively rare further back than that. As to this being only a current political paradigm, I would not agree.

Arguably, it would if they tried it today or in the near future. But what about in the not-so-near future, when the dollar is no longer the world's currency, when the economic policies of the first decades of the 21st century relegated the U.S. to a bit player in world politics, when the power shift results in someone else being consider the "world's super power?"


Germany never attempted a full-scale invasion of England. The "can't" you describe is more of a "better not try it" than "tried and failed." Tactically, the Third Reich was hit-or-miss in its decisions. All else being equal, I would bet that a superior strategist and tactician could have succeeded where Germany failed. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the outcome that did occur was the only outcome that could occur. Or that the status quo is an indicator of the future. Most people didn't see an end to the Iron Curtain. And look what happened there.

Part of what keeps America safe from a full-scale invasion is the assumption on the part of the rest of the world that our response would be swift and violent. Eliminate the factors that contribute to that assumption and you have eliminated one of the leading factors keeping us safe. Whether it's a weak leader who is considered impotent and will refuse to respond in kind, or a physical reduction in our ability to respond. Weakness is provocative. We aren't considered weak yet. But if/when the time comes that we are perceived as being weak enough to be defeated, and the risks associated with an invasion are outweighed by the benefits of success, there won't be a reason NOT to invade. Hell, there's considerable reason TO invade. Imagine the prestige of being the nation that took down the U.S. Rome fell to barbaric tribes picking at it's border lands (in part anyway). And look how long the Roman empire lasted. It's a fool that thinks the U.S. is safe, now or in the future.

Germany possessed some of the lift necessary to invade, but did not have air superiority to control the skies above the channel and the landing sites. How Russia or China would dominate space, the air and the oceans to land forces on the American mainland, were they so inclined, is a puzzle whose solution is not obvious to me. And transporting troops over the ocean. And not worry about internal divisions and likely political instability. This would be a nightmare for either of those nations. Even the Tom Clancy scenario of China invading Russia for oil and gold is implausible.

The US isn't Rome for the simple fact that Rome didn't have SLBMs and ICBMs. The barbarians could chip away at the empire, which finally collapsed largely of its own doing. The US may be rotting from inside. If that is true, and all an invader has to do is kick in the door, then what will it serve us to have a large military?

Would having a larger army have saved Rome? Was that even a military defeat in a meaningful sense of the word?

Please check my earlier posts. I have not argued against having a federal military force. I have argued that the Chinese and Russians have little reason to kick over the apple cart. The enemy that takes the US down, if it happens, is not presently on our radar.

 

[jamil]

Eisenhower (Rep.) said it all in 1961

Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance - YouTube

This is a good point. I want a sufficiently strong military. I strongly believe that "peace through strength" works. However, I don't want corporate welfare to be the price of achieving that. And it doesn't need to be. But somewhere in the chain, it takes honest people having a strong enough public presence to prevent that from happening. But corporate welfare, especially in the world of military contracts, is exactly what we have. And I'm not sure many here disagree with that.

But I think it's safe to say that most here strongly disagree with taking whatever savings we might gain from trimming the legitimate fat from the military, and spending that on a the "social justice" wet dream.

 

[edporch]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

As a political independent, the answer is simple.

Under the US Constitution, defense spending by the federal government is required, and there is NO federal enumerated power to engage in ANY social welfare programs.
See Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
Also note that the phrase "...general welfare" is limited by the enumerated powers, which don't include welfare programs and re-distribution of income.

It can be debated at what level defense spending should be, history shows that readiness and "peace through strength" deter attack best.
Though I think we've been involved in overseas conflicts that aren't in OUR best interest.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I said we don't need a large military? Um... where?

Re your examples, Afghanistan has been occupied by the UK, USSR and USA. Chechnya was not a sovereign nation until what year? Ditto Georgia. Vietnam attacked by France, US, and China. Korea? Um, who attacked Korea exactly? Japan, ditto, pretty sure only the US. Japan has done a number on Russia, China, the ABCD powers. The Philippines? Um. Japan.

So I take from this that our most likely enemy is Japan...

Vietnam = attacked by China in 1978 over a land dispute. Korea - invaded by China in 1951 against NATO forces defending South Korea. Georgia: invaded by the Russians after their independence because of terrorists who were able to move freely through the country to attack the Russians. In the last year or so, China has been harassing Phiippine and Japanese interests in the South China Sea and laying claim to various islands under the control of Japan and the Philippines. The point is not that this happened in the past, it's the point that it's happened and may presage more territorial aggression on the part of large countries - especially China.

Basically status quo powers, which the US, Russia and China all are, have no reason to attack/invade each other. They are vested in the system. They may rattle sabers, but they don't usually make war on each other. WWI is an exception that proves the rule. Nazi Germany and Japan and Italy were not status quo powers, but were trying to overturn the status quo.

None of them faced nuclear annihilation either. Until 1945.

Bull crap. Russia and China have had a history of territorial expansion at their neighbors' expense ever since they've acquired the power to do so. Ridiculous to think that either country might forget long-time animosity towards the US if we become weak enough. Not to mention that while they may have vast natural resources - so do we, even if we're not using them.

Santayana tells us those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm not sure he had advice on those who fail to heed things that never happened.

The absence of war among status quo powers goes back further than 20 years. I would argue it's relatively rare further back than that. As to this being only a current political paradigm, I would not agree.

Apparently you want to be selective about the amount and types of history you want to learn from. There have been territorial wars of one sort or another throughout history, and certainly the last century was no exception. The Founding Fathers certainly understood that if you don't want to be a victim on the world stage you had better not look like a victim. The only reason the Soviets didn't expand beyond the Iron Curtain or the Chinese beyond the Bamboo Curtain is because they didn't have the military means to do so. Now that the Russians have somewhat stabilized their economy within their new borders, they're making expansionistic-noises again, as are the Chinese. You may rationalize their motives all you wish, but they are building up their military capabilities and expanding their influence throughout the world even into the Western Hemisphere.


Germany possessed some of the lift necessary to invade, but did not have air superiority to control the skies above the channel and the landing sites. How Russia or China would dominate space, the air and the oceans to land forces on the American mainland, were they so inclined, is a puzzle whose solution is not obvious to me. And transporting troops over the ocean. And not worry about internal divisions and likely political instability. This would be a nightmare for either of those nations. Even the Tom Clancy scenario of China invading Russia for oil and gold is implausible.

The Germans were unable to invade England because they didn't possess the air superiority needed to make that invasion possible. By the time the Allies invaded Normandy, we DID have air superiority. At present we are relying on a diminishing nuclear deterrent triad to keep the Chinese and Russians at arms' length, but the Russians and Chinese are continuing to expand their conventional forces.

The US isn't Rome for the simple fact that Rome didn't have SLBMs and ICBMs. The barbarians could chip away at the empire, which finally collapsed largely of its own doing. The US may be rotting from inside. If that is true, and all an invader has to do is kick in the door, then what will it serve us to have a large military?

Would having a larger army have saved Rome? Was that even a military defeat in a meaningful sense of the word?

Rome failed because she no longer had the will to survive. Romans stopped filling the ranks of their Armies and settled for hiring mercenaries. And while the Roman armies were defending the borders, the Senate was using more and more of Rome's treasure to feed the masses and keep them entertained with lavish circuses. So yes, the similarities between ancient Rome and our current situation are pretty interesting.

Please check my earlier posts. I have not argued against having a federal military force. I have argued that the Chinese and Russians have little reason to kick over the apple cart. The enemy that takes the US down, if it happens, is not presently on our radar.

As 88GT said, the Russians and Chinese have all sorts of reasons to "kick over the apple cart", starting with historic national aspirations and phobias, working through the greed that permeates mankind, and percolating through the prospect of assuaging national jealousy of America's success and power by bringing us down. Whether or not you are arguing against a federal military force, you've exhibited a flawed understanding of the need for an adequately-sized and prepared military force because you don't appear to grasp the potential threats and the amount of resources necessary to continue to deter them.

 

[octalman]

That's kind of what I'm getting at. The Military has been cut a whole bunch since Reagan, but it's still too big.

Deja Vu all over again. The last great War has been fought, there is no need for large standing armies or a multi-ocean Navy. Now is the time to realize a peace dividend. BUZZZZ - Quiz time. Statements like that grew louder and more frequent when? What happened after "civilized" nations heeded the call to turn their weapons into plowshares? Any guesses Class?

 

[88GT]

Santayana tells us those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm not sure he had advice on those who fail to heed things that never happened.

Fine, history tells us that nations fight nations, and peoples fight peoples. I don't believe you've made an argument to support your opinion.

The absence of war among status quo powers goes back further than 20 years.

Now hold on a minute. You have strung words together and created a phrase that I never used.

I would argue it's relatively rare further back than that.

Relatively rare? There have been no less than 30 armed conflicts in the 20th century alone. (Incidentally, 20 years was your time frame. I was just sticking with it for the sake of argument. Even if we go back 50 years, in the course of human history it's rather inconsequential.) The years of the 20th Century where no major war or conflict was taking place: 1905-1911, 1922-1937, 1976, and....that's it. Of course, those are just the major ones. Conflict is human history.

As to this being only a current political paradigm, I would not agree.

At what other point in history did the world collectively collaborate for the purpose of brokering peace and mediating disagreements between nations for the express purpose of preventing armed conflict?

Germany possessed some of the lift necessary to invade, but did not have air superiority to control the skies above the channel and the landing sites. How Russia or China would dominate space, the air and the oceans to land forces on the American mainland, were they so inclined, is a puzzle whose solution is not obvious to me. And transporting troops over the ocean. And not worry about internal divisions and likely political instability. This would be a nightmare for either of those nations. Even the Tom Clancy scenario of China invading Russia for oil and gold is implausible.

The U.S. transported troops across 2 oceans. It can be done. You seem to be premising your argument on the assumption that nothing will change. The U.S. will always be the military might in this world, the Russians and Chinese will never have a stronger military than they have now, no other nations will ally themselves with others for the purpose of increasing the collective power, etc. and so forth. The assumption has no bearing in fact. Right now, your statement is true. Tomorrow is another thing all together (and by tomorrow, I don't mean the literal tomorrow).

The US isn't Rome for the simple fact that Rome didn't have SLBMs and ICBMs. The barbarians could chip away at the empire, which finally collapsed largely of its own doing. The US may be rotting from inside. If that is true, and all an invader has to do is kick in the door, then what will it serve us to have a large military?

Straw man. The Romans were the best equipped and trained soldiers of the time. And you are correct, the internal workings of Rome contributed to the "ease" and "success" of foreigners invading and conquering Roman lands. But your original argument was that the U.S. was practically unbeatable by virtue of the fact that no one currently has the means to defeat us on our own soil. I simply took your own argument and showed you how a historical nation of identical world standing did in fact fall to invasion by outsiders. You have not allowed that the U.S. could be subject to any factors that would weaken it. Your argument to this point is always projecting future possibility on right here, right now reality. Again, tomorrow it may all change. No one is saying the U.S. is beatable right now. The argument is that the U.S. may not always be that way.

Furthermore, I wasn't arguing for a larger military in the course of this discussion between you and me. The size was irrelevant. I was disagreeing with your conclusions regarding the predictions of the long-term safety of the U.S. and the premises you errantly made in order to reach it. I mentioned in passing that our current size and strength (of both the nation itself and the military) was a deterrent to invasion. I never argued that size of the military alone was sufficient to justify anything.

Would having a larger army have saved Rome? Was that even a military defeat in a meaningful sense of the word?

Considering the scope of influence and power the Romans had on the lands they had conquered, the entrenched Romanization of the peoples, yes, I would argue that it was a military defeat in every sense of the word. The defeat of the Romans did not come from supplanting Roman culture by peaceful means. It was the military defeat of Romans armies that allowed the conquering cultures to take their place at the power table and eat. The fact that Rome's influence exists to the extent that it still does is evidence of that to some degree.

Please check my earlier posts. I have not argued against having a federal military force. I have argued that the Chinese and Russians have little reason to kick over the apple cart. The enemy that takes the US down, if it happens, is not presently on our radar.

,
I never accused you of arguing against a federal army. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I did. I have accused you of arguing, without justification, that the status quo will be tomorrow's future indefinitely. You seem to think that because the time is not ripe for an invasion of the U.S. (by any power) that it will never be. No one was arguing that an invasion was imminent in the next few years. Just that history supports the likelihood of it occurring somewhere, though not necessarily the U.S., and a lack of preparation for it, increases the chances that it will be you and not the other guy. Hence the argument for a larger, stronger military.

 

[88GT]

Deja Vu all over again. The last great War has been fought, there is no need for large standing armies or a multi-ocean Navy. Now is the time to realize a peace dividend. BUZZZZ - Quiz time. Statements like that grew louder and more frequent when? What happened after "civilized" nations heeded the call to turn their weapons into plowshares? Any guesses Class?

[video=youtube;-cDAqrywsHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cDAqrywsHE[/video]

 

[patience0830]

Wow that's clever.

'Cause they're stored next to poo, of course.