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

[cobber]

Why is it that when I said that exact thing so many posts up, you felt the need to argue with me about it?

I never said you could keep your health plan, I think...

First, China's cultural isolationism and superiority complex arrogance mean that they have a history of animosity toward everybody. Second, I guess there is a history between the U.S. and Russia. And third, even if neither of those statements were true, why do you think that it couldn't change?

Lots of things could change. My money is on Liechtenstein as the next US nemesis.

Eh, ultimately the nation-state boundary is just an arbitrary line on the map. Ethnicities, races, cultures, heritages are more likely to be the impetus for action. It just so happens that boundaries are usually drawn such that those ethnicities, races, cultures, heritages are divided from each other. Hitler's war was motivated by culture and ethnicity. The nation-state of Germany was just his vehicle.

This is sounding like Jrogers. I need a semiotician here. Whatever the organizing principle. Georgia may be an ancient society, but it has not been autonomous for many years. And it's ironic that Uncle Joe, once America's biggest enemy, was a son of that society. Arguably an insane Georgian hijacked the benevolent Soviet revolution and turned it into a machine of political and military domination. I'm not making that argument, mind you.

You are way to stuck on the details. It's about human behavior. Man will always be motivated by conquest, and the only thing keeping him from making the effort in the first place is his belief that said effort will result in failure, for whatever reason he might believe it. The minute he convinces himself he can and will win, he will move to strike. Where that has or has not happened in the past is utterly irrelevant to determining where it will happen in the future. The point I have been making all along is that it will happen again.

I was arguing details because a few INGOers felt the dire necessity of naming adversaries and positing imminent threats from them. That being said, the past is relevant. Japan has kicked multiple butts in the past, and they're rubbing folks the wrong way again. Including China and Korea. Fortunately Japan is soft and cuddly right now.

I think if you go back to the posts where this was first introduced, you will note that nobody actually offered the opinion that the U.S. would fall to China or Russia, only that both of those nations could. You have been arguing against nothing.

No, the specific argument was that China or Russia would invade the US. I don't deny they could be adversaries, but an invasion, with the logistics required, seems a paranoid fantasy. We could also prepare for a Martian invasion. Or an asteroid strike. Or global warming. Since the fisc is bottomless.

Did anyone here specifically argue against you on this point? I know I didn't.

Folks here, not you, were rolling out the predictable parade of horribles of adversaries and their nefarious designs because they want to go to war just to take America down. To get back to my point, I don't oppose a strong military, as this is a function allowed in the Constitution. As opposed to social spending, which isn't.

When the stuff hits the fan, as you rightly point out it will, it will behoove us to keep our eyes open strategically. And also not become so focused on false flags that we get caught in another Pearl Harbor/9-11 debacle.

 

[hntrroy]

We don't have an enemy capable matching our military strength. Our closest military competitor has no motive to attack us, and we spend about a dollar for evry quarter on our military than they do. The military is stacked full of equipment that we don't need, but are forced to maintain. Not to mention all the money we spend training other militaries that haven't participated in armed conflict in eons.

That was kind of my point when I mentioned spending more wisely. You are correct that we dont have a current enemy that can match our strength. But that is because we have manitained (until recently) a strong military. This idea of cutting the military budget is as counter productive to maintainng strength as cutting numbers or reducing our counterstrike capebility.

 

[88GT]

We don't have an enemy capable matching our military strength.

That's debatable.

China has a billion people. We are so out-matched it's not even funny.

Our closest military competitor has no motive to attack us,

I think a more accurate assessment is that the chance of success and/or the opportunity cost(s) is still deemed too low to warrant an attack. There is always motive. Land is the ultimate prize.

and we spend about a dollar for evry quarter on our military than they do.

Irrelevant. Expenditures have little bearing on the outcome. Just look at government education.

The military is stacked full of equipment that we don't need, but are forced to maintain. Not to mention all the money we spend training other militaries that haven't participated in armed conflict in eons.

Correct, but that's really a completely different argument.

Folks here, not you, were rolling out the predictable parade of horribles of adversaries and their nefarious designs because they want to go to war just to take America down. To get back to my point, I don't oppose a strong military, as this is a function allowed in the Constitution. As opposed to social spending, which isn't.

When the stuff hits the fan, as you rightly point out it will, it will behoove us to keep our eyes open strategically. And also not become so focused on false flags that we get caught in another Pearl Harbor/9-11 debacle.

Fine. But I still think you're missing a major point: nobody said that Russia or China was going to attack the U.S., or even that they were the biggest threat from a most-likely-to-attack POV. The original question was which nation had a military strong enough to defeat the U.S. The 2 with the best chance--though you may disagree with the assessment that they have an actual chance of success--are Russia and China. The answer could have been Canada, but that wouldn't mean those answering the question actually thought Canada was a threat.

Capable threat =/= likely threat. You're treating this part of the discussion as if the 2 are identical issues.

 

[halfmileharry]

Interesting that Canada was brought up. Mexico should have been as well. The weaknesses of your bordering neighbors are to be assessed and accounted for as well. Not that you can depend on the strength of your neighbors but the weaknesses MUST be defended against as well.
Cut military costs? I'm sure like any other Govt agency there's plenty of waste to go around. Trimming off the fat can leave a mess on the floor. We're talking about the Military Machine here. Lots of weird programs that we learn from as well.
Both my oldest sons went to Saudi, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in "Shield" my oldest let me know they were extremely short on most everything they needed. The military was really downsized under Clinton's watch.
Anyone else here ever had to watch your kids go to war without what they needed to survive?
IMHO cutting waste out of the obvious pork belly social programs is our largest waste of money here. Well, let me back up and say our Politician's salaries are a total waste. We're definitely not getting our money's worth there.

 

[cobber]

Interesting that Canada was brought up. Mexico should have been as well. The weaknesses of your bordering neighbors are to be assessed and accounted for as well. Not that you can depend on the strength of your neighbors but the weaknesses MUST be defended against as well.
Cut military costs? I'm sure like any other Govt agency there's plenty of waste to go around. Trimming off the fat can leave a mess on the floor. We're talking about the Military Machine here. Lots of weird programs that we learn from as well.
Both my oldest sons went to Saudi, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in "Shield" my oldest let me know they were extremely short on most everything they needed. The military was really downsized under Clinton's watch.
Anyone else here ever had to watch your kids go to war without what they needed to survive?
IMHO cutting waste out of the obvious pork belly social programs is our largest waste of money here. Well, let me back up and say our Politician's salaries are a total waste. We're definitely not getting our money's worth there.

How about politicians serve for free? They always say it's a privilege to serve. Time to put money where mouth is... That would practically ensure de facto term limits.

 

[roadrunner681]

How about politicians serve for free? They always say it's a privilege to serve. Time to put money where mouth is... That would practically ensure de facto term limits.

i like it! no pay for congress.

 

[halfmileharry]

i like it! no pay for congress.

Diane Feinstein would be sobbing uncontrollably on the floor if she was to be a servant of the people.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

How about politicians serve for free? They always say it's a privilege to serve. Time to put money where mouth is... That would practically ensure de facto term limits.

That system has been tried numerous places throughout the world. The only thing that happens is that graft becomes more accepted and overt. Anyway, it's not the money that attracts career politicians; it's power. Unless you make the federal government largely powerless, you'll continue to have corruption and inefficiency in all areas humans control.

 

[jamil]

How about politicians serve for free? They always say it's a privilege to serve. Time to put money where mouth is... That would practically ensure de facto term limits.

With all the kickbacks, why do they need a salary anyway?

 

[the1kidd03]

Anyway, it's not the money that attracts career politicians; it's power.

I completely disagree there. Of course, without a thorough psychological evaluation of the majority of them and 100% transparency in their actions/decision we cannot come to any form of "fact" and are left with speculation based in known documented psychological tendencies.

By instituting a government where officials are financially compensated for their law making efforts, you have instituted a society based on the misconception that laws must be routinely created rather than made/debated only when actually necessary. In order to substantiate their job and reason for getting paid, they must do something. That something is create laws. The more laws you create, the less freedoms you have invariably. You have effectively created a society, or form of government, which inherently not only contradicts the principles of liberty but progressively erodes it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the early years of our government the positions were handled by men who held other jobs within the society and were not paid full time compensation for their efforts to address laws. They only did so every so often as needed, not on a constant basis. They had to be a productive part of the society they lived in and earn their income just as the rest of the people. Maybe I'm all wet on that, someone can clarify this for me I'm sure.

For years, I have been saying that politicians, the men voted on to be of solid moral and ethical leadership in order to lead us as a nation, should desire to do the job to benefit the country as a whole in the interest of the people. By imposing ridiculous salaries in addition to ridiculous benefits of varying sources, you open the flood gates to enticing people for the positions who want to do it for their OWN good, and not that of everyone else's. All such people need do is get you to believe they want the job for the right reasons. If you follow any form of media, you know that level of manipulation is not all that difficult to do.

I'm ALL for eliminating salaries and benefits for political leaders in charge of creating laws. It only promotes the degradation of liberty and freedom. AT BEST, I would suggest/promote a pay system based on incentive to benefit the majority of citizens. Perhaps, base their income off the national average income or something. Motivating them to make decisions which help all of the country if they themselves wish to earn a better living. Of course, there a great number of things I would change personally to ensure the principles of liberty and ethical leadership. Most of them start with restructuring government and how things are done. That won't get anywhere of course because none of them would vote to hurt themselves. Again, telling of their self-serving motives. You can't fix one broken tool with another broken tool. If our government is broken, we sure cannot expect them to effectively fix anything else that's important.

 

[Jludo]

Don't touch my aircraft carriers!! Because diplomacy is not a pen and paper it is 100,000 tones of floating diplomacy loaded with nuclear tipped warheads.

I could take one or two of your aircraft carriers away and you wouldn't even notice. Fact is our military budget is bloated and run by the military industrial complex. At least in the past there were other super powers to point to as justification, today none such exist and we could maintain global hegemony with a 500 billion dollar a year military budget. We are much more at risk of losing our position as world reserve currency and economic Juggernaut than we are at risk of the Russians or Chinese invading. MAD makes that scenario nearly impossible.

 

[Jludo]

With all the kickbacks, why do they need a salary anyway?

No kidding, kickbacks, book deals and lucrative private sector jobs after their terms. Ya that guy deserves 300k a year as a 'consulting historian' hah

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I could take one or two of your aircraft carriers away and you wouldn't even notice. Fact is our military budget is bloated and run by the military industrial complex. At least in the past there were other super powers to point to as justification, today none such exist and we could maintain global hegemony with a 500 billion dollar a year military budget. We are much more at risk of losing our position as world reserve currency and economic Juggernaut than we are at risk of the Russians or Chinese invading. MAD makes that scenario nearly impossible.

Like others in this thread, you are equating the current situation to some level of permanence which is not supportable by history. While the "military industrial complex" is undoubtedly self-serving to an extent, what makes it any different from the "Educational Monopoly complex" or the "Cheap Labor and National Cultural Transformation Complex" or the "Let's Save our National Resources Forever Complex" or any of the various other "complexes" competing for power and money and influence? Answer: In order to properly prepare for the defense of the nation and the completion of national foreign policy objectives as directed by the civil government, the military has a duty to forecast and train for and lobby for the proper equipment to achieve those objectives. When the rest of those "complexes" have been cut to the bone, then I'll consider it time to take a hard look at what savings there may be by cutting military capabilities.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like others in this thread, you are equating the current situation to some level of permanence which is not supportable by history. While the "military industrial complex" is undoubtedly self-serving to an extent, what makes it any different from the "Educational Monopoly complex" or the "Cheap Labor and National Cultural Transformation Complex" or the "Let's Save our National Resources Forever Complex" or any of the various other "complexes" competing for power and money and influence? Answer: In order to properly prepare for the defense of the nation and the completion of national foreign policy objectives as directed by the civil government, the military has a duty to forecast and train for and lobby for the proper equipment to achieve those objectives. When the rest of those "complexes" have been cut to the bone, then I'll consider it time to take a hard look at what savings there may be by cutting military capabilities.

What make the Military Industrial Complex different, is that the money is largely spent supporting foreign interests. At least the money spent in the other programs have the "appearance" of attempting to help Americans. When our military budget has billions in military equipment, training, and money to "friends" that aren't so friendly, at a discount, there's a problem.

 

[rambone]

When the rest of those "complexes" have been cut to the bone, then I'll consider it time to take a hard look at what savings there may be by cutting military capabilities.

So... Never?

 

[Jludo]

Like others in this thread, you are equating the current situation to some level of permanence which is not supportable by history. While the "military industrial complex" is undoubtedly self-serving to an extent, what makes it any different from the "Educational Monopoly complex" or the "Cheap Labor and National Cultural Transformation Complex" or the "Let's Save our National Resources Forever Complex" or any of the various other "complexes" competing for power and money and influence? Answer: In order to properly prepare for the defense of the nation and the completion of national foreign policy objectives as directed by the civil government, the military has a duty to forecast and train for and lobby for the proper equipment to achieve those objectives. When the rest of those "complexes" have been cut to the bone, then I'll consider it time to take a hard look at what savings there may be by cutting military capabilities.

'other groups do it' isn't a defense. Bringing up other bloated budgets isn't a defense of the military's.

Also the difference is that the military industrial complex works within the realm of war and the racket that is war. Our bloated military budget enriches contractors and does nothing to keep us 'secure'.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Of the other bloated budgets I've named, name ONE that is a constitutional mandate of federal government. Please do cite your evidence that our "bloated" military does nothing to keep us secure; I think perhaps the former Soviet Union might disagree with you; the Germans might not want to admit that we kept them secure for 40 years - and in doing so, enhanced our own security, but the fact is that's what we did. But you go ahead and trot out the evidence you have to support your statement.

 

[Jludo]

Are you saying you don't think Chuck Hagel could keep us safe with a 500 billion dollar budget ?

 

[jamil]

Are you saying you don't think Chuck Hagel could keep us safe with a 500 billion dollar budget ?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm saying I don't think you have a clue about where the military budget goes, what goes into determining the force structure, or what effects various geopolitical machinations have on preparations for the security of this country. You appear to be spouting talking points from anti-military sources.