tuna55 wrote: In reply to Javelin: Good point, I don't see the point of a homeland security department at all.
Well the TSA can suck it, but yeah, we do need the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol. Everything else in Homeland Security is BS and can be dropped. Also, the Coast Guard needs to get back to it's real missions (SAR, Fisheries, Aids to Navigation, and Drug Interdiction) and focus less on being the Border Patrol.
tuna55, you're spot on about what the origins, but without a specific question, I don't think this thread's going anywhere useful, and there's been enough of that recently that I'd really like to avoid anything doomed and try to get back to the remarkably functional discussions I've mostly seen here.
Not a terribly useful comment itself, but I thought I'd acknowledge that I think your assumption about topic is correct before I vanish...
In these economic times, it seems clear that our (US of A) federal gov't spending needs to be pared by more than 30 billion. As a libertarian, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be spending $ on other nations' security if they have the capability of doing so themselves. And that they must truly be political allies. We have enabled too many countries to allow their population to devolve to a "peacenik" mindset, without coming to grips with the hard reality that there are evil people out there who have control of armies and armaments. So there are populations out there who "hate the U.S." and want our military bases closed in their backyard, when the leaders are wanting us to stay because we provide protection they don't pay for, and our presence adds to their economy. (shrug) So why do we "defend" Korea, Japan, the Philippines, most NATO countries, and on and on, when most of these countries should have enough motivation to defend themselves? To "defend democracy"? If the American Experiment of republican democracy hasn't been proved of value by now, how does our presence help? So, I agree at an abstract level with what the website where this graph came from. But to change the system requires will, and allows politics to be played. I'm not sure there is the will, and I'm not sure we can trust the politicians.
In reply to pstrbrc:
Not that I don't agree with you, but the terms of Japan's WWII surrender kind of require us to protect them, as the size of their "Self Defense Force" is severely limited.
As for South Korea, they are more than capable of protecting themselves from the psychotic Kim Jong Il, but we stay there to help enforce the DMZ and to deter China from following the North through and in.
Pretty much all of the other countries we "support" can suck it though, especially Israel. I don't mind the Navy hanging out at Panama, Suez, and Gibralter though.
In reply to pstrbrc:
Good points. I made that point to a more republican friend of mine once:
"Why do we pay to maintain a military base in Israel?"
"Because we are allies"
"OK, so don't we just go over to help them when it's needed?"
"Blah blah blah"
"I helped you move last week, right?"
"yup, thanks!"
"no problem. Am I currently in a tent in your backyard waiting until you need help again?"
Javelin wrote:alfadriver wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: miliseconds.That's what she said!
You are mistaking that for milimeters....
MitchellC wrote: As far as what to cut; hell if I know. I imagine that there are numerous people who do nothing except calculate what needs to be cut ....
Unless we are talking about magazines, putting Porn and cutting together gives me the shivers....
alfadriver wrote:MitchellC wrote: As far as what to cut; hell if I know. I imagine that there are numerous people who do nothing except calculate what needs to be cut ....Unless we are talking about magazines, putting Porn and cutting together gives me the shivers....
Are you being perverted or saying that you can't imagine cutting your porn budget? He did say it was an adult subject.
oldtin wrote:Zomby woof wrote:That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.z31maniac wrote: "I came in here for an argument.......No you didn't.
No it isn't.
mtn wrote:oldtin wrote:No it isn't.Zomby woof wrote:That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.z31maniac wrote: "I came in here for an argument.......No you didn't.
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
tuna55 wrote: you guys have internet porn on the brain in the middle of a workday? What are you doing in your spare time?
Apparently our hands.
AquaHusky wrote:tuna55 wrote: you guys have internet porn on the brain in the middle of a workday? What are you doing in your spare time?Apparently our hands.
touche! Nicely done.
tuna55 wrote:alfadriver wrote:Are you being perverted or saying that you can't imagine cutting your porn budget? He did say it was an adult subject.MitchellC wrote: As far as what to cut; hell if I know. I imagine that there are numerous people who do nothing except calculate what needs to be cut ....Unless we are talking about magazines, putting Porn and cutting together gives me the shivers....
I wasn't thinking budget....
alfadriver wrote:MitchellC wrote: As far as what to cut; hell if I know. I imagine that there are numerous people who do nothing except calculate what needs to be cut ....Unless we are talking about magazines, putting Porn and cutting together gives me the shivers....
What if a rabbi is involved?
Sshhhhh.....
Hear that?
Yeah man, whassat?
'Lectrik sumpin'
Damn, nah dog, it's ... it's like mud or sumptin. Head dat thump thump electric in da background?
YO! RUN RUN Da QueenDorks got da mixer out!
HEARDAT! Birfers 'n Religeon thread is an open wound and now a GRAPH!
Bwaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Guys, sorry I left this alone "so long". 
I'm in a training class and posting during breaks.
This graph was from a very left wing site that was suggested to me. I didn't buy into the whole article but thought the graphic was interesting. I posted it here because I know we're all rational guys that can have a conversation on this subject in a rational manner. The subject being spending.
The graph states our military spending level relative to the world. That's why I said what I did in the initial post. Some folks will see this as perfect, others a catastrophe, and everywhere in between. (NOTE: I know the site this came from is biased. If anyone has a more neutral site with data to confirm or deny this data please post it.)
I was curious what everyone else's take was.
I also find it interesting that while budget conversations tend to center around social programs they typically don't delve into the social cost we pay for the various wars we fight whether declared, undeclared, or clandestine.
I think it's a subject that should be talked about along with our discussions of how, and which, social programs to cut.
Xceler8x wrote: I think it's a subject that should be talked about along with our discussions of how, and which, social programs to cut.
Agreed. Pulling out of Somolia, Korea, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, blah blah blah would be an excellent start. maybe we're like that guy who comes over for a party at your house and then never leaves.
Xceler8x wrote: I also find it interesting that while budget conversations tend to center around social programs they typically don't delve into the social cost we pay for the various wars we fight whether declared, undeclared, or clandestine. I think it's a subject that should be talked about along with our discussions of how, and which, social programs to cut.
Military is to the Republicans what social programs are to the Democrats. That's why we can't cut anything.
In reply to tuna55:
I thought we left Afghanistan and Iraq already. Next you'll say there are still people locked up in Cuba
DILYSI Dave wrote:Xceler8x wrote: I also find it interesting that while budget conversations tend to center around social programs they typically don't delve into the social cost we pay for the various wars we fight whether declared, undeclared, or clandestine. I think it's a subject that should be talked about along with our discussions of how, and which, social programs to cut.Military is to the Republicans what social programs are to the Democrats. That's why we can't cut anything.
Sorta.
I tend to vote republican in some elections and I would support military cuts - although I understand hat you mean.
Wally wrote: In reply to tuna55: I thought we left Afghanistan and Iraq already. Next you'll say there are still people locked up in Cuba
You pick those two and miss Somolia?
We just hang around for decades after everything is over. Spending money, wasting time. That's how we roll.
Xceler8x wrote: I also find it interesting that while budget conversations tend to center around social programs they typically don't delve into the social cost we pay for the various wars we fight whether declared, undeclared, or clandestine.
I guess I'm not really sure how to connect soldiers in Afghanistan to welfare mothers in Detroit? Or Grandma's precription coverage?
Unless you are just saying the money spent on war, would be better spent on social programs, and I would agree with that to a degree.
That or we pile money into a country that will never return our investment. But hey, I'm an isolationalist. I think we should invest in our kids in whatever way we, as a nation, deem important.
Analyzing our spending habits is like sex. Do it for the kids!
In reply to tuna55:
I did miss Somalia and Kosovo. I don't know how, I have friends that managed a Burger King in Kosovo. Maybe we need to spread a bit of fast food on everyone. How much fighting can you do after a triple Whopper and some onion rings?
I'm neither left nor right, however to a right-winger I appear leftist.
Having a military is like walking into a bar with knife drawn; someone's bound to pick a fight. If everyone dissolved their military then who would need a military?
Is it a necessary institution? Right now given how unenlightened I think society is, definitely. There are other benefits to it like the research and development, not to mention the government job stimulation, but as far as spending trillions of dollars on the latest greatest fighter jet, I'm not sure its necessary.
In that aspect, the cold war was one of the greatest things that could have happened - nobody got nuked, but it was a chance to spend money on research and technology while the money was there. Right now we have no money, but the spending has continued to skyrocket despite the fact that there is less need for heavy military support. This isn't WW1. Wars aren't necessarily won with bayonets and hand-to-hand combat. Its more of a who-flexes-the-biggest-muscle thing.
After seeing that chart, it amazes me that people still support these current conflicts. We have enough "muscle" that we could practically make a few threatening phone calls to these dictators and solve the issue in a few days... not that I think its our right to do so. Instead we spend trillions of fed-happy dollars that line the pockets of a select few keeping an unwinnable war in perpetual motion. Sounds like Vietnam all over again.
I must be clear here (lest someone jump down my throat) I fully support the troops, but not the war. If we were battling an actual threat to our freedoms it would be different, but freedom from high gas prices doesn't appear in the Constitution. Nor does freedom to waste my money imposing Imperialis.... sorry, Capitalism while lining bankers' pockets.
You'll need to log in to post.
